All of the media is gawping in shock this morning over the remarks Donald Trump made at last night's Alfred E. Smith dinner. Even my hubby was shocked, but I get it. I know exactly why The Donald did what he did, said what he said.
My mother taught me well that there are right times and right places. Swearing in church is a wrong time / wrong place. Kneeling for prayer in a pig sty, same. Last night might not have been the right time or place, but it was an opportunity too good to pass by.
Before going farther, my position on the people who call themselves journalists is that they are, almost all of them, blatant bald-faced liars. Any credibility they might have had is gone - 100% - because of their collusion with the most corrupt, evil political campaign I have ever seen. Granted, that's only about 50 years' worth, but I remember reading about the Kennedy / Nixon mix-up in my teens, and the questions that still swirl around Johnson's implication in the Kennedy assassination. Carter / Reagan, Reagan / Mondale, Bush / Dukakis, etc. NOTHING stinks compared to this one.
For the past year, and we have proof positive through Wikileaks, Hilliary's slavering, slobbering lackeys at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, Washington Times, etc., have engaged in unrelenting character assassination.
They won't touch Hilliary. Oh, no. She owns them, they know it, and they fear her.
In fact, just the other day, CNN asked a pol a question about Donald Trump. When the man just mentioned Wikileaks, the satellite feed "mysteriously" cut out. If it wasn't so flagrant, so obvious, it might have been funny. But it's not.
For eighteen months these television outlets (they do not have any right to call themselves "news media" and they certainly have NO RIGHT to call themselves "journalists" since they are far less than intellectually honest) have gone after Trump in concerted, deliberate way.
They have not pointed out in good natured humor the little things, the human failings and foibles we all have, as they have with Clinton (few and far between though they be). No, they have made things up entirely.
The "bimbo eruptions" (if I may borrow a derogatory phrase from the women's advocate Mrs. Clinton) for instance. Why, if those charges against Mr. Trump are legitimate, didn't those women come forward long ago, at the time it happened? Not even one or two surfaced over the years - why suddenly, a few weeks before the election?
After all, Trump didn't have the power, as Bill Clinton did, to affect the futures of those women in meaningful way. I can say with certainty, after watching him and listening to him for the past year, that Trump would not stoop to the kind of intimidation and the threats of physical harm many of Bill's accusers say came their way from Hilliary. He's just not like that. He'd talk about it. He'd call them names, say mean or nasty things, or sued the paper or outlet that released the stories, but that would be it.
No, without those false accusations, the heads of the television stations didn't have anything to make people hate Trump. They have performed character assassination against Trump and against Melania. Written lies and spoken have flooded the airwaves - proof nowhere to be found - and he's had no venue in which to strike back.
Until last night when he was handed a golden opportunity, and he took it.
Hilliary and her ankle licking, butt sniffing lapdogs of the press were all in the same room. None were in position to do anything about it, so what better time or place to lay it all out? To tell them that he knows, as does the rest of America, how corrupt, morally and ethically bankrupt these people have become. In a matter of a few words, he unburdened himself. He called out those hate-filled people and lanced the boil of resentment that has simmered in many Americans who have watched this circus, disgusted and offended.
And I, despite the inappropriateness of the time and place, applaud him - standing O, Mr. (future) President.
As for the "news" outlets? They have done their profession irreparable harm. Never again will I believe a single word they say - even if they say it's raining while outside my windows water is falling from the sky. Once a liar, always a liar and you can never be sure that a liar isn't lying when their lips are moving.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Showing posts with label Donald Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Donald Trump. Show all posts
Friday, October 21, 2016
Monday, April 25, 2016
Bailing Like Mad
Oh! How I wish I had a single shred of artistic talent for drawing. If I did, I have the vision of a perfect political jab.
After hearing the news this morning, I can clearly visualize the Cruz ship with Ted directing John to move the deck chairs over there while flailing madly with the bailing bucket and staring down the looming Trump iceberg.
There is nothing more pathetic than desperation, and that's what the latest bid by Cruz and Kasich clearly shows.
When Cruz took Carson aside into the closet before one of the debates a while back, he was probably trying to build the same kind of coalition.
Carson, man that he is, had none of it. He was dignified and gentlemanly and, so far as I've heard, has kept that conversation entirely to himself. That was a couple of months ago and word hasn't leaked, so he's a good and honorable man. Unlike the individual who attempted to importune him in that closet.
Now Cruz is probably dangling the Vice Presidency in front of Kasich's nose. That, of course, demands that Kasich is as completely delusional and naive as he appears.
Come on, man! You have won one state out of thirty-eight that have voted so far, and that by a narrow margin, and you really think you're going to pull this off and become Pres? Yeah, there's a sign of intelligence and savvy.
Even at the convention he's not going to stand a chance. According to current rules he cannot even have his name entered for consideration on the first ballot because he hasn't won the requisite number of state contests. To think this guy, as clueless as this seems, might be president is even scarier than the prospect of Hilliary or Bernie.
On the other hand, maybe his colluding with the Slime Master shows he has woken up to reality, sees he has no possible path to the nomination and is hitching his wagon to the one guy who will have him.
Of course, I wouldn't put it past Cruz to make all sorts of early morning promises ("of course I respect you") and then kick Kasich to the curb once the nomination is his.
However, when I went to school, 0 + 0 = 0 and that's what I'm seeing. Although, in this case, I think the equation could be re-written as Loser + Loser = Loser.
I am delighted that Trump is again leading in all of the polls leading into tomorrow's primaries. Even Indiana which just last week most of the pundits were saying would be a Cruz state. Now Trump is up by about six points, so I have hope. According to the specific state polls, Trump is trouncing the competition - and I don't think the desperate grasping at straws by Cruz is going to help him. It makes him look weak and sleazy.
Well, whatever else happens in the next forty-eight hours, I hope it's good news.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
After hearing the news this morning, I can clearly visualize the Cruz ship with Ted directing John to move the deck chairs over there while flailing madly with the bailing bucket and staring down the looming Trump iceberg.
There is nothing more pathetic than desperation, and that's what the latest bid by Cruz and Kasich clearly shows.
When Cruz took Carson aside into the closet before one of the debates a while back, he was probably trying to build the same kind of coalition.
Carson, man that he is, had none of it. He was dignified and gentlemanly and, so far as I've heard, has kept that conversation entirely to himself. That was a couple of months ago and word hasn't leaked, so he's a good and honorable man. Unlike the individual who attempted to importune him in that closet.
Now Cruz is probably dangling the Vice Presidency in front of Kasich's nose. That, of course, demands that Kasich is as completely delusional and naive as he appears.
Come on, man! You have won one state out of thirty-eight that have voted so far, and that by a narrow margin, and you really think you're going to pull this off and become Pres? Yeah, there's a sign of intelligence and savvy.
Even at the convention he's not going to stand a chance. According to current rules he cannot even have his name entered for consideration on the first ballot because he hasn't won the requisite number of state contests. To think this guy, as clueless as this seems, might be president is even scarier than the prospect of Hilliary or Bernie.
On the other hand, maybe his colluding with the Slime Master shows he has woken up to reality, sees he has no possible path to the nomination and is hitching his wagon to the one guy who will have him.
Of course, I wouldn't put it past Cruz to make all sorts of early morning promises ("of course I respect you") and then kick Kasich to the curb once the nomination is his.
However, when I went to school, 0 + 0 = 0 and that's what I'm seeing. Although, in this case, I think the equation could be re-written as Loser + Loser = Loser.
I am delighted that Trump is again leading in all of the polls leading into tomorrow's primaries. Even Indiana which just last week most of the pundits were saying would be a Cruz state. Now Trump is up by about six points, so I have hope. According to the specific state polls, Trump is trouncing the competition - and I don't think the desperate grasping at straws by Cruz is going to help him. It makes him look weak and sleazy.
Well, whatever else happens in the next forty-eight hours, I hope it's good news.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Reince - Be Honest for a Change, Wouldja?
Okay - I'm confounded, I'll admit it. After all, I'm 'just' a voter. Sitting here, in my kitchen as I write this, it looks like Reince Priebus and his puppet masters are just making things up as they go. This day it's this, the next day it's that - all in an effort to suppress the will of the American voter.
I'm registered with the party of my choice, have been for years. Now I'm holding my nose until June 8th, fighting the waves of nausea brought on by that party's dishonesty and malfeasance. I'm hoping that the nausea won't rise to levels that will overwhelm me - June seems a long way off.
When June 7th comes I'll go out and vote. Which means standing in line and taking time out of my day and life just as tens of millions of others have done this year. Even though I have other things to do, things I need to do and want to do, I'll take however long it takes to go vote, because I think it's important.
On June 8th I will go down to my local post office, and I will pick up a new voter registration card, and I will leave the party of which I have been a (formerly) proud member for nearly forty years. I will re-register as an Independent. I will not sully my soul by staying in the pig sty of Republican politics for one instant longer than it takes for me to vote for Donald Trump in this primary.
But given recent events - what happened in Colorado, the buying and selling of delegate votes in Louisiana and Arkansas and other states - I'm not sure it is important any more.
Across America, millions of people have put their lives on hold for hours at a time - some for five or six hours or longer - to go caucus or stand in line to vote. They voted. The majority to date have said they want Donald Trump to be the next president. In the Republican race, he has won more contests than any other candidate. He's got about two million more votes than Ted Cruz, but all of that might not count.
Ted Cruz is out buying - yes, folks, buying - delegates. And I do not give one little tiny rip that he says he's not, that it's all by the rules.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but buying is when you give someone something in exchange for something else. You give the supermarket your money in exchange for your groceries. That is buying.
In this case, Cruz is buying delegates by promising them things or giving them things. He is shopping through the election aisles for delegates - all sitting on their shelves and waiting for him to make an offer - $1.39 for this, $5.59 for that - and when he gets to the checkout (Convention), he will pay for them.
Delegates should not be commodities easily bought and sold by the highest, sleaziest bidder - they should be required to represent the voices of the people who sent them to Cleveland - and not on just the first ballot. Bound delegates should remain bound for at least two ballots to give the process a chance to work as the candidates buy, sell and trade the souls of those people who are there, allegedly, to represent the voters who got them there.
And I do not give the least little rip if it's a swag bag loaded with expensive gifts (legal) or political favor (not legal). It is precisely the same thing because in the final analysis, it is an exchange: For this I will give you that.
I just wish to Heaven that Reince Priebus would find his spine long enough to shush his puppet masters and then be honest.
Go ahead, Reince, tell all of those tens of millions of people who voted for Trump in Iowa and New Hampshire and all the other states that it was just a show, that their time, their energy, their passion doesn't count for anything.
Instead of wasting our time, our passion, our energy and attention listening to the people who are in front of us as candidates, just tell us flat out so there is no misunderstanding, that there is no point in us even paying attention to this circus. Then we can turn off our television sets, ignore the political ads, and just stop paying even lip service to this. We can go back to living our lives, walking the treadmill of futility all so we can get nowhere.
We can go back to being the hopeless lab rats the RNC and GOP see us as. Sitting in our cages of economic despair, just waiting for the next tax to fall on our shoulders, the next corporation to close its doors, our hope for ourselves and our children and grandchildren to turn to desert dust as we are put out of work while employers move overseas.
Who gives a good goddamn if American citizens live or thrive?
The GOP doesn't. Their actions make it clear they don't.
The RNC doesn't - they are conniving and colluding with other people not even in this race, hiding behind closed doors, working hard to thwart the will of the Americans who have gone out to vote, who have made it clear that we, the People called out in the Bill of Rights and Constitution, want Donald Trump as president.
The Washington Elites don't. Of course they don't because a non-politician, someone who cannot be bought and sold, manipulated and controlled is going to upset their apple cart.
You know what, though? I. Don't. Care. I don't care what they don't want.
From the preamble to the Bill of Rights all through the Constitution, We the People have the power to rule our lives.
This is, as it has been from the outset, a government of, by and for The People - and if the RNC, the GOP Establishment and the Elites don't get it, they shouldn't be surprised if this bloodless revolution they are seeing in the voting booth becomes something else. They will have brought it on themselves.
So, c'mon, Reince - just take that deep breath. Tell us none of this matters, that it doesn't count for anything.
Or get the Hell out of our way. Stop trying to manipulate us and our government - follow the will of the People and tell the delegates that they are not for sale. That they have been entrusted by the voters and are obligated to us.
Now - put up or shut up, 'k?
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
I'm registered with the party of my choice, have been for years. Now I'm holding my nose until June 8th, fighting the waves of nausea brought on by that party's dishonesty and malfeasance. I'm hoping that the nausea won't rise to levels that will overwhelm me - June seems a long way off.
When June 7th comes I'll go out and vote. Which means standing in line and taking time out of my day and life just as tens of millions of others have done this year. Even though I have other things to do, things I need to do and want to do, I'll take however long it takes to go vote, because I think it's important.
On June 8th I will go down to my local post office, and I will pick up a new voter registration card, and I will leave the party of which I have been a (formerly) proud member for nearly forty years. I will re-register as an Independent. I will not sully my soul by staying in the pig sty of Republican politics for one instant longer than it takes for me to vote for Donald Trump in this primary.
But given recent events - what happened in Colorado, the buying and selling of delegate votes in Louisiana and Arkansas and other states - I'm not sure it is important any more.
Across America, millions of people have put their lives on hold for hours at a time - some for five or six hours or longer - to go caucus or stand in line to vote. They voted. The majority to date have said they want Donald Trump to be the next president. In the Republican race, he has won more contests than any other candidate. He's got about two million more votes than Ted Cruz, but all of that might not count.
Ted Cruz is out buying - yes, folks, buying - delegates. And I do not give one little tiny rip that he says he's not, that it's all by the rules.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but buying is when you give someone something in exchange for something else. You give the supermarket your money in exchange for your groceries. That is buying.
In this case, Cruz is buying delegates by promising them things or giving them things. He is shopping through the election aisles for delegates - all sitting on their shelves and waiting for him to make an offer - $1.39 for this, $5.59 for that - and when he gets to the checkout (Convention), he will pay for them.
Delegates should not be commodities easily bought and sold by the highest, sleaziest bidder - they should be required to represent the voices of the people who sent them to Cleveland - and not on just the first ballot. Bound delegates should remain bound for at least two ballots to give the process a chance to work as the candidates buy, sell and trade the souls of those people who are there, allegedly, to represent the voters who got them there.
And I do not give the least little rip if it's a swag bag loaded with expensive gifts (legal) or political favor (not legal). It is precisely the same thing because in the final analysis, it is an exchange: For this I will give you that.
I just wish to Heaven that Reince Priebus would find his spine long enough to shush his puppet masters and then be honest.
Go ahead, Reince, tell all of those tens of millions of people who voted for Trump in Iowa and New Hampshire and all the other states that it was just a show, that their time, their energy, their passion doesn't count for anything.
Instead of wasting our time, our passion, our energy and attention listening to the people who are in front of us as candidates, just tell us flat out so there is no misunderstanding, that there is no point in us even paying attention to this circus. Then we can turn off our television sets, ignore the political ads, and just stop paying even lip service to this. We can go back to living our lives, walking the treadmill of futility all so we can get nowhere.
We can go back to being the hopeless lab rats the RNC and GOP see us as. Sitting in our cages of economic despair, just waiting for the next tax to fall on our shoulders, the next corporation to close its doors, our hope for ourselves and our children and grandchildren to turn to desert dust as we are put out of work while employers move overseas.
Who gives a good goddamn if American citizens live or thrive?
The GOP doesn't. Their actions make it clear they don't.
The RNC doesn't - they are conniving and colluding with other people not even in this race, hiding behind closed doors, working hard to thwart the will of the Americans who have gone out to vote, who have made it clear that we, the People called out in the Bill of Rights and Constitution, want Donald Trump as president.
The Washington Elites don't. Of course they don't because a non-politician, someone who cannot be bought and sold, manipulated and controlled is going to upset their apple cart.
You know what, though? I. Don't. Care. I don't care what they don't want.
From the preamble to the Bill of Rights all through the Constitution, We the People have the power to rule our lives.
This is, as it has been from the outset, a government of, by and for The People - and if the RNC, the GOP Establishment and the Elites don't get it, they shouldn't be surprised if this bloodless revolution they are seeing in the voting booth becomes something else. They will have brought it on themselves.
So, c'mon, Reince - just take that deep breath. Tell us none of this matters, that it doesn't count for anything.
Or get the Hell out of our way. Stop trying to manipulate us and our government - follow the will of the People and tell the delegates that they are not for sale. That they have been entrusted by the voters and are obligated to us.
Now - put up or shut up, 'k?
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Thursday, April 7, 2016
I Knew Yesterday's Post Would Strike a Nerve
I may have joined Donald Trump as a serial insulter because of yesterday's post, but I stand by my position.
Two people, both acquaintances from another website whom I like and admire through what I've learned of them there, say Trump is a misogynist. I've said before that he's not, and I still don't believe that he is. Particularly after doing research for this post.
According to Merriam-Webster, misogyny is the 'hatred of women'. Just Googling the term comes back with 'a person who dislikes, despises or is strongly prejudiced against women'.
So that's the baseline. If we believe the misogynist label, Donald Trump either outright hates women, or he dislikes, despises and/or is strongly prejudiced against women - all women. Not one, not two or this one or that one or the other.
I don't buy that. I think he is an equal opportunity insulter without the sense God gave a chicken when it comes to shutting up.
If Donald Trump is a misogynist, why has he been married three times, to three women who are unarguably better looking than most and who are, independent of their marriage to him, successful?
If he hates women, why did he appoint Ivana to several high-profile positions within the Trump Organization? She was the Vice President of Interior Design and had a hand in the design of Trump Tower. In 1990, she was named Hotelier of the Year when she was president of Trump's Plaza Hotel in New York. This is hardly the profile of a weak woman, or one overrun by her husband.
And, if he 'hates' women, why did he put her in a position of apparent power? Why not show his disrespect by making her some low-level worker bee, or keep her out of his company altogether?
Marla Maples was a model who, after her divorce from The Donald, became an actress in movies and on television. She's had a radio talk show. I don't think a weak woman could be successful in the shark tanks of talk radio and Hollywood.
Melania certainly had plenty of opportunity for a successful life without Trump. She has a degree in design and architecture from University of Ljubljana, Yugoslavia. She was a successful model. She currently runs two businesses - one for jewelry sold on QVC and another for a high-end moisturizer. This is not your typical abused woman hated by her husband. She is successful in her own right and has plenty of opportunity to stand on her own two feet if things were ugly in her marriage.
Googling 'Donald and Melania Trump news' doesn't come up with lurid headlines about troubles or fights or splits or gossip. They appear to be a solid couple and the pictures of them together don't show any sign of discord. In fact, if you look at his expression in those pictures where he's looking at her, they're almost prideful. They're certainly admiring.
He's got his daughter Ivanka out there stumping for him and, according to some I've listened to on the chattering shows, she is one of his strongest advisers. Another woman whom he respects.
But those are family - of course he treats them well. Yet - if we go back to the original basis for the label, it's a universal behavior. He (supposedly) dislikes women - all inclusive. I hold that he doesn't.
Take a minute and read this article from last November's Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-a-champion-of-women-his-female-employees-think-so/2015/11/23/7eafac80-88da-11e5-9a07-453018f9a0ec_story.html
Or this, from Yahoo:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/whats-up-with-donald-trump-and-the-women-not-090043983.html
In this, the position I take is confirmed: Donald Trump is a serial insulter. He is even-handed in his opinions - men and women - with just two tags for people: 'Great' or 'Loser' and once on the list it's hard to get off.
Based on reading both of these articles and a few others, he is superficial in his judgement of people - appearance matters. That does not make him a misogynist, though. It just proves he is shallow. Just like most people who make snap judgements based on appearance rather than character.
After all, if you climb aboard a bus or train or a shared transport of any kind, or are even at an airport terminal waiting for a flight and you have the choice between taking the seat next to someone good looking and well groomed or someone who is, at best, lazy about their appearance, which seat will you choose?
That's a superficial judgement. For all you know that sharp well-dressed person is a perv and the lazy slob is another Einstein. Looking at these two guys in the pictures above, and given the choice of taking the empty seat, guess which I would pick. And, I suspect you'd do the same.
We all make judgements about other people's appearance. We just have the sense to keep our opinions to ourselves.
Oh, and those two guys there? One is a serial killer and the other is a multi-billionaire - Ted Bundy and Mark Cuban, respectively.
I liken Trump's behavior to Tourette's syndrome. That is a condition where a person has an inexplicable, unfortunate and uncontrollable urge to spew whatever hits their tongue no matter where they are or who they are with. Tourette's is also linked to ADHD - a tendency toward impulsive behavior. I don't believe that Trump has either of these things overtly or clinically, but based on observation - the tendency to jump from topic to topic to topic and back again, to say precisely what's front and present in his awareness, perhaps there's a touch there.
Another possibility might be found in research done by the Max Planck Institute on the psychology of speech.
It has been studied and proved that we start to speak before we decide precisely what we're going to say. Unlike in writing when we at least have the opportunity to go back and edit before releasing our wisdom into the world, speech is immediate and difficult to correct because there is a delay between our starting a sentence and what we end up deciding to say.
Perhaps Trump's linkages are weaker than most or maybe they're quicker. Instead of having time to apply the filter the majority of us use, the synapses are so fast that the words escape before his brain has a chance to intervene.
Does this excuse what he says? No. But it is one explanation and I still say that the 'misogynist' label is misapplied when it's applied to Trump. Not because I'm stubborn, but because I judge people on what I see and weigh them on what I hear. He's not perfect, not by a long stretch, but I recognize the good things about him. Based on what I've read about this particular person, I'm comfortable defending my support of him.
Does this proclivity to speak what's on his mind disqualify him from public office? I don't think so. I would much rather have someone who speaks what he thinks, even if I don't like hearing it, than have yet another snake oil salesman who thinks and rehearses every single thing and makes promises he has no intention of keeping.
In my opinion all of the other candidates in this horse race are just another snake oil salesman, aka Professional Politician.
Clinton has been in politics almost all of her adult life - from when Billy-Jeff was governor of Arkansas in the 1980s to today.
Sanders is a career politician who has been around Washington for decades, getting started as a mayor in Vermont back in the 1970's.
Cruz is another career politician - first working at the Federal Trade Commission for four years (1999 - 2003), serving as an advisor to Bush II during his campaign, working as Solicitor General of Texas and, more recently became a Senator.
None of these choices will change anything in Washington - so I would rather have a Tourette-tainted equal opportunity serial insulter in the Oval Office who might actually have the stones to get something done. At the very least it'll shake things up an awful lot.
So, with that out of the way, I hope your day is wonderful.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Two people, both acquaintances from another website whom I like and admire through what I've learned of them there, say Trump is a misogynist. I've said before that he's not, and I still don't believe that he is. Particularly after doing research for this post.
According to Merriam-Webster, misogyny is the 'hatred of women'. Just Googling the term comes back with 'a person who dislikes, despises or is strongly prejudiced against women'.
So that's the baseline. If we believe the misogynist label, Donald Trump either outright hates women, or he dislikes, despises and/or is strongly prejudiced against women - all women. Not one, not two or this one or that one or the other.
I don't buy that. I think he is an equal opportunity insulter without the sense God gave a chicken when it comes to shutting up.
If Donald Trump is a misogynist, why has he been married three times, to three women who are unarguably better looking than most and who are, independent of their marriage to him, successful?
 |
| Ivana Trump, Marla Maples, Melania Trump |
And, if he 'hates' women, why did he put her in a position of apparent power? Why not show his disrespect by making her some low-level worker bee, or keep her out of his company altogether?
Marla Maples was a model who, after her divorce from The Donald, became an actress in movies and on television. She's had a radio talk show. I don't think a weak woman could be successful in the shark tanks of talk radio and Hollywood.
Melania certainly had plenty of opportunity for a successful life without Trump. She has a degree in design and architecture from University of Ljubljana, Yugoslavia. She was a successful model. She currently runs two businesses - one for jewelry sold on QVC and another for a high-end moisturizer. This is not your typical abused woman hated by her husband. She is successful in her own right and has plenty of opportunity to stand on her own two feet if things were ugly in her marriage.
Googling 'Donald and Melania Trump news' doesn't come up with lurid headlines about troubles or fights or splits or gossip. They appear to be a solid couple and the pictures of them together don't show any sign of discord. In fact, if you look at his expression in those pictures where he's looking at her, they're almost prideful. They're certainly admiring.
He's got his daughter Ivanka out there stumping for him and, according to some I've listened to on the chattering shows, she is one of his strongest advisers. Another woman whom he respects.
But those are family - of course he treats them well. Yet - if we go back to the original basis for the label, it's a universal behavior. He (supposedly) dislikes women - all inclusive. I hold that he doesn't.
Take a minute and read this article from last November's Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-a-champion-of-women-his-female-employees-think-so/2015/11/23/7eafac80-88da-11e5-9a07-453018f9a0ec_story.html
Or this, from Yahoo:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/whats-up-with-donald-trump-and-the-women-not-090043983.html
In this, the position I take is confirmed: Donald Trump is a serial insulter. He is even-handed in his opinions - men and women - with just two tags for people: 'Great' or 'Loser' and once on the list it's hard to get off.
Based on reading both of these articles and a few others, he is superficial in his judgement of people - appearance matters. That does not make him a misogynist, though. It just proves he is shallow. Just like most people who make snap judgements based on appearance rather than character.
After all, if you climb aboard a bus or train or a shared transport of any kind, or are even at an airport terminal waiting for a flight and you have the choice between taking the seat next to someone good looking and well groomed or someone who is, at best, lazy about their appearance, which seat will you choose?
That's a superficial judgement. For all you know that sharp well-dressed person is a perv and the lazy slob is another Einstein. Looking at these two guys in the pictures above, and given the choice of taking the empty seat, guess which I would pick. And, I suspect you'd do the same.
We all make judgements about other people's appearance. We just have the sense to keep our opinions to ourselves.
Oh, and those two guys there? One is a serial killer and the other is a multi-billionaire - Ted Bundy and Mark Cuban, respectively.
I liken Trump's behavior to Tourette's syndrome. That is a condition where a person has an inexplicable, unfortunate and uncontrollable urge to spew whatever hits their tongue no matter where they are or who they are with. Tourette's is also linked to ADHD - a tendency toward impulsive behavior. I don't believe that Trump has either of these things overtly or clinically, but based on observation - the tendency to jump from topic to topic to topic and back again, to say precisely what's front and present in his awareness, perhaps there's a touch there.
Another possibility might be found in research done by the Max Planck Institute on the psychology of speech.
It has been studied and proved that we start to speak before we decide precisely what we're going to say. Unlike in writing when we at least have the opportunity to go back and edit before releasing our wisdom into the world, speech is immediate and difficult to correct because there is a delay between our starting a sentence and what we end up deciding to say.
Perhaps Trump's linkages are weaker than most or maybe they're quicker. Instead of having time to apply the filter the majority of us use, the synapses are so fast that the words escape before his brain has a chance to intervene.
Does this excuse what he says? No. But it is one explanation and I still say that the 'misogynist' label is misapplied when it's applied to Trump. Not because I'm stubborn, but because I judge people on what I see and weigh them on what I hear. He's not perfect, not by a long stretch, but I recognize the good things about him. Based on what I've read about this particular person, I'm comfortable defending my support of him.
Does this proclivity to speak what's on his mind disqualify him from public office? I don't think so. I would much rather have someone who speaks what he thinks, even if I don't like hearing it, than have yet another snake oil salesman who thinks and rehearses every single thing and makes promises he has no intention of keeping.
In my opinion all of the other candidates in this horse race are just another snake oil salesman, aka Professional Politician.
Clinton has been in politics almost all of her adult life - from when Billy-Jeff was governor of Arkansas in the 1980s to today.
Sanders is a career politician who has been around Washington for decades, getting started as a mayor in Vermont back in the 1970's.
Cruz is another career politician - first working at the Federal Trade Commission for four years (1999 - 2003), serving as an advisor to Bush II during his campaign, working as Solicitor General of Texas and, more recently became a Senator.
None of these choices will change anything in Washington - so I would rather have a Tourette-tainted equal opportunity serial insulter in the Oval Office who might actually have the stones to get something done. At the very least it'll shake things up an awful lot.
So, with that out of the way, I hope your day is wonderful.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Monday, April 4, 2016
Why Donald Trump Is Right About the Economy
Oops, he's done it again... Trump is saying that we're heading for a very big, very bad recession and... he's right.
There are two schools of economic thought. Most common is Keynesian economics which have gotten us into the economic pickle we're in. Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen - all the Federal Reserve and Treasury wonks subscribe to Keynesian theory because, for governments, it's easy. Just print your way to prosperity. Never mind that by printing more and more bills you're diluting the value of the currency.
You and I, however, don't have the luxury of having a printing press to try printing our way out of debt. We live in the real world and it's the real world economy Trump is talking about when he says things are iffy. He is absolutely 100% right - about the stock market, the currencies and the rest of it.
In the real world you and I can't just print more money to pay off our debt. We have to keep our balance sheet in balance - assets and liabilities - and have a means of paying off the debt we acquire.
In the Keynesian world, you don't. That is the fundamental break-point and it's important for understanding the bigger picture.
For years the United States has been able to sell our treasury bills. Those are pledges that in exchange for a loan we will repay the money at a future date, plus interest. We were good with that because we were seen as a strong economy, solid as a rock with the full faith and credit.
Then things went south in the mid-2000s. The recession came along and everyone got nervous. China and the OPEC countries started grumbling. They don't like their currencies pegged to our dollar in the foreign exchange (FOREX where currencies are traded) world. Their currencies suffered by comparison because anyone who wanted to buy a 'strong' currency would invest in the dollar.
They started manipulating their currencies. The Yuan in particular. And they talked about changing the FOREX 'rules' so that OPEC would no longer sell its oil based on the value of the US dollar but on the Yuan or the Ruble.
So, without getting too far into the weeds, we are a Keynesian economy on which other economies are based through their various currencies. If we go under we will take many of the other world economies with us. The EU and the British pound will probably be badly hurt, but they are strong enough to survive. It's the other nations, to whom the US has sold treasury bills by the trillions, that will get 'killed'. If we go under, they will be holding stacks and stacks and stacks of worthless paper.
That is the risk here - that is why Trump is saying we are on the verge of a collapse.
At this point the United States is in general debt to the tune of about twenty trillion dollars.
Our REAL debt, though, including those entitlements you hear talk about, is closer to seventy trillion dollars. That is unsustainable - even under Keynesian theory because even under Keynesian economics, that is outstanding debt and if it's called... guess what happens to the almighty dollar?
We can't repay it. There's no way in a million years (literally) we can repay it. We would default and if we default on that debt, the entire world will follow. We will have zero credit and zero credibility. No one will want our money. No one will want to buy our debt - which is reflected in those treasury bills.
This morning, when I turned on the news, the talking heads were talking about their 'confusion' over Trump's statement. The 'economists are scratching their heads' was one line.
When most people hear the label 'economist' they think 'uber-smart know-it-all' regarding all things financial. What they lose sight of is the fact that before they are economists, those people are just people. They're not smarter than you or I. It's just that they just went to school and studied economics. Then they got a piece of parchment that says 'Economics'. They aren't necessarily smarter than the average bear. They just like numbers and their inter-relationships.
I like numbers, too. I like reading about money and currencies and politics and how they're all interrelated. So I pay attention to money and the markets - including gold and silver and the Baltic Dry Index (BDI).
That last is an important 'little' thing. It's an indicator of international shipping which means trade.
When China or South Korea needs to make a widget, they have to buy raw materials or parts from other places - no one country can produce all the elements that go into their widgets, so they import them. Containers are loaded up with boxes and bales and bags of widget parts. Those containers are loaded onto a ship and moved from here to there.
Once the widget is made - be it a laptop, a computer, a television or a toy, the finished good is loaded into another container and loaded onto another ship and shipped to wherever there are consumers willing and able to buy those finished goods.
This shipping is what the BDI tracks. If the BDI is high, there's a lot of movement - economies are trading money for goods and materials. If the BDI is low, that indicates a lot of those very expensive ships are sitting idle. Trade is not happening, no one is buying raw materials or shipping finished goods - and that's a sign of a weak world economy.
In the past couple of months, the BDI hit all time lows - and stayed there for weeks. Ships were sitting empty and idle in ports around the world. Even the Panama Canal has been affected - recently offering a 30% discount for ships passing through the canal.
Ship & Bunker, the trade magazine, has a recent article that advises against excitement over the recent surge in the utilization of hulls - 30% of ships are still sitting idle. Even though 70% of ships are in use, that 30% is still putting a heavy strain on shipping companies and their lenders - those ships still have debt on them and that debt has to be repaid.
http://shipandbunker.com/news/world/441019-dont-be-fooled-by-april-1-surge-in-baltic-dry-index-analyst-warns
That's one economic indicator. If goods aren't being bought and sold, money isn't being exchanged and that is not good for the world economy.
Closer to home, these economists are pointing at the "good" unemployment rate - the recent increase in jobs, even though the unemployment rate ticked up to 5% last week and will likely be adjusted higher in a week or ten days. That 5% is a completely pulled from thin air number, though. It's happy talk for the folks and here's why I say that.
This is a screenshot that I took from usdebtclock.org this morning:
http://usdebtclock.org/
Let's look a little closer at this, shall we?
In 2000 the median income - the average annual earnings per household across America - was $28,302. Today, April 4, 2016, the median income is $30,171 - just a little more than $14 per hour but they buying power of that $14 is much less than it was in 2000. Think back - in 2000 you could probably buy a nice lunch in most cities in America and have money left over from $10. Now I'd challenge you to find a nice lunch for less than $15 - that's inflation.
Based on the rate of inflation - generally considered to be an average of about 3% per year - median income should be $22.59 per hour now. But it's not. That screenshot is from just this morning and it's reflective of reality. So wages aren't exactly robust.
There is also the comparison between the "Official Unemployed" of 7,959,124 and the "Real Unemployed" of 15,592,681 - almost twice as many people are unemployed as the government says. Which puts the real unemployment rate closer to 10% than to the official number of 5%.
Don't take my word for this - just Google 'real unemployment rate'. Warning: look past the government sites - they have a vested interest in selling you snake oil, so look at CNBC, Bloomberg or one of the other financial sites. They're still to be taken with a grain of salt because they have a vested interest in painting a rosier picture than reality, but they're a bit more trustworthy.
In that screenshot are a few more esoteric indicators.
The number of uninsured - which indicates that there are more than forty million people who cannot afford the insurance premiums that they are required to pay under Obamacare. They're working but are caught between the rock and a hard place of their earnings and the cost of the insurance premiums. They earn too much to qualify for the government subsidy, but too little to be able to afford the premiums. People like me.
Consider your own situation because you're little different than your neighbors or friends. If you are doing better now than you were ten years ago, good for you - I'm thrilled. I'm willing to wager that you're not, though. How's your personal economy doing? How are your wages compared to ten years ago? Are you earning more now than you were ten years ago?
Those are the economic indicators that really matter. The stock market is manipulated - it's run by the investment houses and banks but it's controlled by the Federal Reserve (Central Bank that runs all of the world economies when you get down to brass tacks) and the US Treasury department. They have a little thing instituted during the early days of the 2007 / 2008 Recession.
Remember Quantitative Easing - QE and QE 1 and QE 2, etc? Well, that's part of it - it's called Permanent Open Market Operations (POMO).
To prevent the stock market from having wild swings as the markets change and people get confident or scared - pull their money or invest it - that POMO was put in place.
When the market drops significantly - more than a hundred points or so - the Treasury steps in. They infuse 'money' in the form of code (1's and 0's) to stabilize it. If it soars, they'll let it go because it looks good to the folks.
The real value of the DOW Jones, if it wasn't manipulated as it's been over the past ten years or so, would probably be in the range of 10,000 to 12,000 points. There is nothing supporting what you see when you look at the markets - there is no real intrinsic value and nothing in the fundamental net worth of those companies to support the current 17,500 level in the market.
Don't believe me? Well, first look up POMO. It's there in Google. Read about it (although I warn you: it's dry as dust and you'll probably want to throttle me for suggesting the read). Then do some research. Talk to a financial adviser you trust - one who's not selling you something because if he's your broker or if he's selling you something, he's got a vested interest in lying to you about it. After all, if you think that the DOW will head toward 30,000 wouldn't you buy?
So Donald isn't wrong. He might be premature, but he is not wrong because there is nothing supporting this economy. We're a lot like Wiley E. Coyote in the Bugs Bunny cartoons. As long as we don't look down, look for the underpinning that's holding us up, we're fine. Once we realize that we're treading on thin air... look out!
Do some reading and research. Talk to people knowledgeable about this stuff. Listen carefully to the talking heads who discuss stuff like this. The contradictions between what they say - the excuses they use - are so commonplace you'll soon realize the truth.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
There are two schools of economic thought. Most common is Keynesian economics which have gotten us into the economic pickle we're in. Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen - all the Federal Reserve and Treasury wonks subscribe to Keynesian theory because, for governments, it's easy. Just print your way to prosperity. Never mind that by printing more and more bills you're diluting the value of the currency.
You and I, however, don't have the luxury of having a printing press to try printing our way out of debt. We live in the real world and it's the real world economy Trump is talking about when he says things are iffy. He is absolutely 100% right - about the stock market, the currencies and the rest of it.
In the real world you and I can't just print more money to pay off our debt. We have to keep our balance sheet in balance - assets and liabilities - and have a means of paying off the debt we acquire.
In the Keynesian world, you don't. That is the fundamental break-point and it's important for understanding the bigger picture.
For years the United States has been able to sell our treasury bills. Those are pledges that in exchange for a loan we will repay the money at a future date, plus interest. We were good with that because we were seen as a strong economy, solid as a rock with the full faith and credit.
Then things went south in the mid-2000s. The recession came along and everyone got nervous. China and the OPEC countries started grumbling. They don't like their currencies pegged to our dollar in the foreign exchange (FOREX where currencies are traded) world. Their currencies suffered by comparison because anyone who wanted to buy a 'strong' currency would invest in the dollar.
They started manipulating their currencies. The Yuan in particular. And they talked about changing the FOREX 'rules' so that OPEC would no longer sell its oil based on the value of the US dollar but on the Yuan or the Ruble.
So, without getting too far into the weeds, we are a Keynesian economy on which other economies are based through their various currencies. If we go under we will take many of the other world economies with us. The EU and the British pound will probably be badly hurt, but they are strong enough to survive. It's the other nations, to whom the US has sold treasury bills by the trillions, that will get 'killed'. If we go under, they will be holding stacks and stacks and stacks of worthless paper.
That is the risk here - that is why Trump is saying we are on the verge of a collapse.
At this point the United States is in general debt to the tune of about twenty trillion dollars.
Our REAL debt, though, including those entitlements you hear talk about, is closer to seventy trillion dollars. That is unsustainable - even under Keynesian theory because even under Keynesian economics, that is outstanding debt and if it's called... guess what happens to the almighty dollar?
We can't repay it. There's no way in a million years (literally) we can repay it. We would default and if we default on that debt, the entire world will follow. We will have zero credit and zero credibility. No one will want our money. No one will want to buy our debt - which is reflected in those treasury bills.
This morning, when I turned on the news, the talking heads were talking about their 'confusion' over Trump's statement. The 'economists are scratching their heads' was one line.
When most people hear the label 'economist' they think 'uber-smart know-it-all' regarding all things financial. What they lose sight of is the fact that before they are economists, those people are just people. They're not smarter than you or I. It's just that they just went to school and studied economics. Then they got a piece of parchment that says 'Economics'. They aren't necessarily smarter than the average bear. They just like numbers and their inter-relationships.
I like numbers, too. I like reading about money and currencies and politics and how they're all interrelated. So I pay attention to money and the markets - including gold and silver and the Baltic Dry Index (BDI).
That last is an important 'little' thing. It's an indicator of international shipping which means trade.
When China or South Korea needs to make a widget, they have to buy raw materials or parts from other places - no one country can produce all the elements that go into their widgets, so they import them. Containers are loaded up with boxes and bales and bags of widget parts. Those containers are loaded onto a ship and moved from here to there.
Once the widget is made - be it a laptop, a computer, a television or a toy, the finished good is loaded into another container and loaded onto another ship and shipped to wherever there are consumers willing and able to buy those finished goods.
This shipping is what the BDI tracks. If the BDI is high, there's a lot of movement - economies are trading money for goods and materials. If the BDI is low, that indicates a lot of those very expensive ships are sitting idle. Trade is not happening, no one is buying raw materials or shipping finished goods - and that's a sign of a weak world economy.
In the past couple of months, the BDI hit all time lows - and stayed there for weeks. Ships were sitting empty and idle in ports around the world. Even the Panama Canal has been affected - recently offering a 30% discount for ships passing through the canal.
Ship & Bunker, the trade magazine, has a recent article that advises against excitement over the recent surge in the utilization of hulls - 30% of ships are still sitting idle. Even though 70% of ships are in use, that 30% is still putting a heavy strain on shipping companies and their lenders - those ships still have debt on them and that debt has to be repaid.
http://shipandbunker.com/news/world/441019-dont-be-fooled-by-april-1-surge-in-baltic-dry-index-analyst-warns
That's one economic indicator. If goods aren't being bought and sold, money isn't being exchanged and that is not good for the world economy.
Closer to home, these economists are pointing at the "good" unemployment rate - the recent increase in jobs, even though the unemployment rate ticked up to 5% last week and will likely be adjusted higher in a week or ten days. That 5% is a completely pulled from thin air number, though. It's happy talk for the folks and here's why I say that.
This is a screenshot that I took from usdebtclock.org this morning:
http://usdebtclock.org/
Let's look a little closer at this, shall we?
In 2000 the median income - the average annual earnings per household across America - was $28,302. Today, April 4, 2016, the median income is $30,171 - just a little more than $14 per hour but they buying power of that $14 is much less than it was in 2000. Think back - in 2000 you could probably buy a nice lunch in most cities in America and have money left over from $10. Now I'd challenge you to find a nice lunch for less than $15 - that's inflation.
Based on the rate of inflation - generally considered to be an average of about 3% per year - median income should be $22.59 per hour now. But it's not. That screenshot is from just this morning and it's reflective of reality. So wages aren't exactly robust.
There is also the comparison between the "Official Unemployed" of 7,959,124 and the "Real Unemployed" of 15,592,681 - almost twice as many people are unemployed as the government says. Which puts the real unemployment rate closer to 10% than to the official number of 5%.
Don't take my word for this - just Google 'real unemployment rate'. Warning: look past the government sites - they have a vested interest in selling you snake oil, so look at CNBC, Bloomberg or one of the other financial sites. They're still to be taken with a grain of salt because they have a vested interest in painting a rosier picture than reality, but they're a bit more trustworthy.
In that screenshot are a few more esoteric indicators.
The number of uninsured - which indicates that there are more than forty million people who cannot afford the insurance premiums that they are required to pay under Obamacare. They're working but are caught between the rock and a hard place of their earnings and the cost of the insurance premiums. They earn too much to qualify for the government subsidy, but too little to be able to afford the premiums. People like me.
Consider your own situation because you're little different than your neighbors or friends. If you are doing better now than you were ten years ago, good for you - I'm thrilled. I'm willing to wager that you're not, though. How's your personal economy doing? How are your wages compared to ten years ago? Are you earning more now than you were ten years ago?
Those are the economic indicators that really matter. The stock market is manipulated - it's run by the investment houses and banks but it's controlled by the Federal Reserve (Central Bank that runs all of the world economies when you get down to brass tacks) and the US Treasury department. They have a little thing instituted during the early days of the 2007 / 2008 Recession.
Remember Quantitative Easing - QE and QE 1 and QE 2, etc? Well, that's part of it - it's called Permanent Open Market Operations (POMO).
To prevent the stock market from having wild swings as the markets change and people get confident or scared - pull their money or invest it - that POMO was put in place.
When the market drops significantly - more than a hundred points or so - the Treasury steps in. They infuse 'money' in the form of code (1's and 0's) to stabilize it. If it soars, they'll let it go because it looks good to the folks.
The real value of the DOW Jones, if it wasn't manipulated as it's been over the past ten years or so, would probably be in the range of 10,000 to 12,000 points. There is nothing supporting what you see when you look at the markets - there is no real intrinsic value and nothing in the fundamental net worth of those companies to support the current 17,500 level in the market.
Don't believe me? Well, first look up POMO. It's there in Google. Read about it (although I warn you: it's dry as dust and you'll probably want to throttle me for suggesting the read). Then do some research. Talk to a financial adviser you trust - one who's not selling you something because if he's your broker or if he's selling you something, he's got a vested interest in lying to you about it. After all, if you think that the DOW will head toward 30,000 wouldn't you buy?
So Donald isn't wrong. He might be premature, but he is not wrong because there is nothing supporting this economy. We're a lot like Wiley E. Coyote in the Bugs Bunny cartoons. As long as we don't look down, look for the underpinning that's holding us up, we're fine. Once we realize that we're treading on thin air... look out!
Do some reading and research. Talk to people knowledgeable about this stuff. Listen carefully to the talking heads who discuss stuff like this. The contradictions between what they say - the excuses they use - are so commonplace you'll soon realize the truth.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Sunday, April 3, 2016
The MSM is Chock-full of Mental Defectives
Can you believe this? Less than two weeks ago, ISIS blew up an airport and a subway station in Brussels. They killed more than thirty people and injured several hundred more, but the biggest issue in American politics this week is not the existential threats of terrorism, our porous border, jobs or the economy.
No. According to the so-called 'news' outlets, the only and the BIGGEST threat to our country is that Donald Trump made more than a few stupid, ill-informed statements* about abortion.
*Sorry, Donald, but I'm like you - I call 'em as I see 'em and there is no other explanation for what you said - stupid (you should never have tried to answer that question) and ill-informed (because you didn't have your facts straight until after the fact: Roe v. Wade is the law, period, end of story).
So is this election really all and only about abortion? Are we so insulated from the rest of the world that we can discuss and dissect what goes on in women's wombs to the exclusion of everything else?
Well, based on what I'm hearing and seeing from the MSM yes, it is.
After all, since this blew up last week during interviews with Anderson Cooper on CNN and Chris Matthews on MSNBC, every single one of the chattering class on television, and the nattering class in the print media, have talked about nothing else. It's as if ISIS and the rest of it doesn't exist.
However, to the intelligent people out here in the real world, this whole discussion of the past week is a pure non-issue.
Roe v. Wade was decided by SCOTUS more than forty years ago. Unless and until something brings another case in front of the court it is a waste of time, oxygen and energy to talk about it. Even if it did end up back in front of SCOTUS, it is right next door to impossible that it would be struck down or overturned.
Still, instead of spending time talking about the really important things that matter to people out here, outside of New York and Washington - like jobs, like taxes, like government regulations, like terrorists blowing innocent people to smithereens, like North Korea and its nukes, like ISIS working on developing chemical weapons in a chem lab in Iraq, like Iran and its ballistic missiles, like... That is one hell of an impressive list of substantive issues - but, instead of focusing on those things, the MSM is all caught up in women's wombs. Give me a break.
I'm sorry - but I really do not give the first little rip about what goes on with some other woman's womb. Like it or not, agree with it or not, it is none of my business and I do not want to talk about it any more.
Hello! * Knock, knock, knock * CNN, Pravda-USA, MSNBC I've got news for you guys - the issue of women's reproductive rights is dead and settled - has been for about four decades now - can we just let it go? Can't we please focus on the economy, national security, safety and the big ticket issues that really matter to the majority of adults in this country?
Can we please talk about the important grown-up stuff for a change?
I hope so.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
No. According to the so-called 'news' outlets, the only and the BIGGEST threat to our country is that Donald Trump made more than a few stupid, ill-informed statements* about abortion.
*Sorry, Donald, but I'm like you - I call 'em as I see 'em and there is no other explanation for what you said - stupid (you should never have tried to answer that question) and ill-informed (because you didn't have your facts straight until after the fact: Roe v. Wade is the law, period, end of story).
So is this election really all and only about abortion? Are we so insulated from the rest of the world that we can discuss and dissect what goes on in women's wombs to the exclusion of everything else?
Well, based on what I'm hearing and seeing from the MSM yes, it is.
After all, since this blew up last week during interviews with Anderson Cooper on CNN and Chris Matthews on MSNBC, every single one of the chattering class on television, and the nattering class in the print media, have talked about nothing else. It's as if ISIS and the rest of it doesn't exist.
However, to the intelligent people out here in the real world, this whole discussion of the past week is a pure non-issue.
Roe v. Wade was decided by SCOTUS more than forty years ago. Unless and until something brings another case in front of the court it is a waste of time, oxygen and energy to talk about it. Even if it did end up back in front of SCOTUS, it is right next door to impossible that it would be struck down or overturned.
Still, instead of spending time talking about the really important things that matter to people out here, outside of New York and Washington - like jobs, like taxes, like government regulations, like terrorists blowing innocent people to smithereens, like North Korea and its nukes, like ISIS working on developing chemical weapons in a chem lab in Iraq, like Iran and its ballistic missiles, like... That is one hell of an impressive list of substantive issues - but, instead of focusing on those things, the MSM is all caught up in women's wombs. Give me a break.
I'm sorry - but I really do not give the first little rip about what goes on with some other woman's womb. Like it or not, agree with it or not, it is none of my business and I do not want to talk about it any more.
Hello! * Knock, knock, knock * CNN, Pravda-USA, MSNBC I've got news for you guys - the issue of women's reproductive rights is dead and settled - has been for about four decades now - can we just let it go? Can't we please focus on the economy, national security, safety and the big ticket issues that really matter to the majority of adults in this country?
Can we please talk about the important grown-up stuff for a change?
I hope so.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Saturday, March 26, 2016
Twitter Wars & TMI
Ted Cruz, as I have said before is, in my opinion, a sleaze. Actually, lying slime ball might be more accurate. Whatever he is, he is not my idea of a 'Christian' since he hasn't a single shred of decency or character.
First there was the voter violation form in Iowa:
This is despicable. Particularly if you consider that some, if not many people who received this probably thought it was legitimate. The Iowa Secretary of State certainly took exception to it, and launched an investigation.
At about the same time, Cruz's campaign put out the news that Ben Carson had dropped out of the race. They knew he hadn't, but that didn't stop this man or his campaign from telling voters and potential voters that he had.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/05/ben-carson-campaign-releases-tape-of-ted-cruz-worker-spreading-rumors/
In Utah, the bastion of Mormanism which has peculiar ideas about sexual right and wrong (polygamy is still not entirely unheard of in this day and age, but showing off your nude body is morally wrong), one of Cruz's many superPacs plastered billboards of Melania Trump's naked body all over the place.
I'm not going to post that here - you can look for it if you want - but please note:
1) She was a professional model doing her job during that photo shoot (and she's gorgeous!); and,
2) That photo was taken before she was Mrs. Donald Trump and long before Mr. Donald Trump decided to run for president.
3) A woman doing her job before she was married to a political candidate should be strictly off-limits, and any decent human being would have left it alone.
But Cruz's campaign through its super PAC didn't pay any attention to that, and Ted Cruz didn't denounce it as he would if he had just one speck of any moral standing at all. Just one speck of decency and he would have both denounced that attack and he would have demanded that the superPAC take those billboards down and issue an apology. At the very least, he would have done the morally right thing and would have publicly apologized to the Trumps for that slimy stunt.
Tellingly, he didn't. Not before, not during and not since. Then, doubling down on duplicity, he's put on a great show of being outraged by Trump's response - the Tweet and re-Tweet of an unflattering picture of Cruz's wife.
Then, on Friday, the National Enquirer came out blaring in lurid headlines that Ted Cruz is a sex machine (five mistresses - what stamina!). Cruz instantly accused Donald Trump of being behind it. He made that accusation without any fact or foundation - and he did it on live national television.
Since then the boil has simmered down and it's come out - spread all over the internet - that the rumor was floated to the mainstream media back in late January and early February by the Rubio campaign.
That's right - Little Marco Rubio was prepared to float that rumor, and was trying to shop it long before it boiled up in the National Enquirer. This is being reported by Salon and the Huffington Post.
So here we have a Ted Cruz who waves his Christianity in the air like a battle flag defaming Donald Trump by blaming Trump of doing something he didn't do.
Sounds an awful lot like bearing false witness to me - and it has not been rescinded. Cruz has not been a man. He has not been honest and clean. He has not stepped forward and apologized to Trump for accusing him of doing something he did not do or to his wife for the slimy tactics of his super PAC - which no doubt altered the political landscape in Utah.
Now, is that the Christian thing to do, to stand by a lie instead of admitting it was a mistake? Is it the decent thing to do not to apologize to someone who should have been left alone during a campaign being dragged into it, as Melania Trump had done to her?
Is it any wonder at all that Donald Trump consistently refers to Ted Cruz as 'Lyin' Ted'? I don't think so. And, further supporting Trump's label, Politifact has the following 'file' on Ted Cruz:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/
Just 6% of Ted Cruz's assertions are true. 94% of his assertions range from Mostly True to Pants on Fire so 'Lyin' Ted' fits.
For someone to trash another man's wife - even if doing it at arm's length and with a wink and a nod - and then to accuse that woman's husband of trashing him is despicable.
It deserves retaliation - which Trump has not done. Yes, he put up an unattractive picture of Heidi Cruz next to a lovely picture of Melania, but he hasn't trashed Mrs. Cruz in any substantial way.
Katrina Pierson, a Trump spokeswoman disclosed salient information about Mrs. Cruz while being interviewed on MSNBC - but if the statements made are true, I don't see a problem with it.
First, the allegation about Mrs. Cruz working for Goldman Sachs is documented, as is the fact that Ted Cruz 'forgot' to disclose the loan from Goldman on his financial disclosure forms. There's a direct tie to the Wall Street banks that have caused such pain in the US economy during the past decade.
Second, and potentially more important, is the allegation of Heidi Cruz being associated with the Council on Foreign Relations. This is true - she was for five years under a 'term membership' affiliated with this group.
What is this Council? According to some, it is a group that has plans to wipe sovereignty from the global map - no sovereign nations, a one world order with the UN as the government.
During his first run for the Senate Ted Cruz called this organization a 'pernicious nest of vipers'.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2011/10/a-pit-of-vipers-also-his-wife-040327
Heidi Cruz was an active member of this 'pernicious nest of vipers' for more than five years, so which is it?
According to the article linked above, she served for 'five years'. However, it's documented on the CFR website that she worked on a task force to write a report entitled "Building A North American Community". This was a plan which would irrevocably tie Canada, the United States and Mexico together and was issued in 2005 - six years before the linked article says she left her 'five year' membership.
Here is a link to this report which you can open as a PDF or download.
http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102
Her name is in it as a contributor - and an advocate - and if you read the recommendations starting on page 7, it's pretty clear that the borders between the three countries would be virtually eliminated. There would be no independent and sovereign Canada, no independent and sovereign United States of America, and no independent and sovereign Mexico.
So he lies to us every single time he opens his mouth and says he is 'for' a sovereign United States of America that includes a wall between here and Mexico.
Obviously, his wife worked for more than a few years for an organization that supports no such thing. Obviously they discussed her work there - it's what any married couple does. They talk about work, about what they're doing.
If he truly believes in a sovereign America, why did he not insist that she quit that 'pernicious nest of vipers'? Could it be that he was in silent agreement with their goals?
I don't know, but it sure looks suspicious - which is more reason why I will never, ever vote for Ted Cruz - not even for dog catcher.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
First there was the voter violation form in Iowa:
This is despicable. Particularly if you consider that some, if not many people who received this probably thought it was legitimate. The Iowa Secretary of State certainly took exception to it, and launched an investigation.
At about the same time, Cruz's campaign put out the news that Ben Carson had dropped out of the race. They knew he hadn't, but that didn't stop this man or his campaign from telling voters and potential voters that he had.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/05/ben-carson-campaign-releases-tape-of-ted-cruz-worker-spreading-rumors/
In Utah, the bastion of Mormanism which has peculiar ideas about sexual right and wrong (polygamy is still not entirely unheard of in this day and age, but showing off your nude body is morally wrong), one of Cruz's many superPacs plastered billboards of Melania Trump's naked body all over the place.
I'm not going to post that here - you can look for it if you want - but please note:
1) She was a professional model doing her job during that photo shoot (and she's gorgeous!); and,
2) That photo was taken before she was Mrs. Donald Trump and long before Mr. Donald Trump decided to run for president.
3) A woman doing her job before she was married to a political candidate should be strictly off-limits, and any decent human being would have left it alone.
But Cruz's campaign through its super PAC didn't pay any attention to that, and Ted Cruz didn't denounce it as he would if he had just one speck of any moral standing at all. Just one speck of decency and he would have both denounced that attack and he would have demanded that the superPAC take those billboards down and issue an apology. At the very least, he would have done the morally right thing and would have publicly apologized to the Trumps for that slimy stunt.
Tellingly, he didn't. Not before, not during and not since. Then, doubling down on duplicity, he's put on a great show of being outraged by Trump's response - the Tweet and re-Tweet of an unflattering picture of Cruz's wife.
Then, on Friday, the National Enquirer came out blaring in lurid headlines that Ted Cruz is a sex machine (five mistresses - what stamina!). Cruz instantly accused Donald Trump of being behind it. He made that accusation without any fact or foundation - and he did it on live national television.
Since then the boil has simmered down and it's come out - spread all over the internet - that the rumor was floated to the mainstream media back in late January and early February by the Rubio campaign.
That's right - Little Marco Rubio was prepared to float that rumor, and was trying to shop it long before it boiled up in the National Enquirer. This is being reported by Salon and the Huffington Post.
So here we have a Ted Cruz who waves his Christianity in the air like a battle flag defaming Donald Trump by blaming Trump of doing something he didn't do.
Sounds an awful lot like bearing false witness to me - and it has not been rescinded. Cruz has not been a man. He has not been honest and clean. He has not stepped forward and apologized to Trump for accusing him of doing something he did not do or to his wife for the slimy tactics of his super PAC - which no doubt altered the political landscape in Utah.
Now, is that the Christian thing to do, to stand by a lie instead of admitting it was a mistake? Is it the decent thing to do not to apologize to someone who should have been left alone during a campaign being dragged into it, as Melania Trump had done to her?
Is it any wonder at all that Donald Trump consistently refers to Ted Cruz as 'Lyin' Ted'? I don't think so. And, further supporting Trump's label, Politifact has the following 'file' on Ted Cruz:
Just 6% of Ted Cruz's assertions are true. 94% of his assertions range from Mostly True to Pants on Fire so 'Lyin' Ted' fits.
For someone to trash another man's wife - even if doing it at arm's length and with a wink and a nod - and then to accuse that woman's husband of trashing him is despicable.
It deserves retaliation - which Trump has not done. Yes, he put up an unattractive picture of Heidi Cruz next to a lovely picture of Melania, but he hasn't trashed Mrs. Cruz in any substantial way.
Katrina Pierson, a Trump spokeswoman disclosed salient information about Mrs. Cruz while being interviewed on MSNBC - but if the statements made are true, I don't see a problem with it.
First, the allegation about Mrs. Cruz working for Goldman Sachs is documented, as is the fact that Ted Cruz 'forgot' to disclose the loan from Goldman on his financial disclosure forms. There's a direct tie to the Wall Street banks that have caused such pain in the US economy during the past decade.
Second, and potentially more important, is the allegation of Heidi Cruz being associated with the Council on Foreign Relations. This is true - she was for five years under a 'term membership' affiliated with this group.
What is this Council? According to some, it is a group that has plans to wipe sovereignty from the global map - no sovereign nations, a one world order with the UN as the government.
During his first run for the Senate Ted Cruz called this organization a 'pernicious nest of vipers'.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2011/10/a-pit-of-vipers-also-his-wife-040327
Heidi Cruz was an active member of this 'pernicious nest of vipers' for more than five years, so which is it?
According to the article linked above, she served for 'five years'. However, it's documented on the CFR website that she worked on a task force to write a report entitled "Building A North American Community". This was a plan which would irrevocably tie Canada, the United States and Mexico together and was issued in 2005 - six years before the linked article says she left her 'five year' membership.
Here is a link to this report which you can open as a PDF or download.
http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102
Her name is in it as a contributor - and an advocate - and if you read the recommendations starting on page 7, it's pretty clear that the borders between the three countries would be virtually eliminated. There would be no independent and sovereign Canada, no independent and sovereign United States of America, and no independent and sovereign Mexico.
So he lies to us every single time he opens his mouth and says he is 'for' a sovereign United States of America that includes a wall between here and Mexico.
Obviously, his wife worked for more than a few years for an organization that supports no such thing. Obviously they discussed her work there - it's what any married couple does. They talk about work, about what they're doing.
If he truly believes in a sovereign America, why did he not insist that she quit that 'pernicious nest of vipers'? Could it be that he was in silent agreement with their goals?
I don't know, but it sure looks suspicious - which is more reason why I will never, ever vote for Ted Cruz - not even for dog catcher.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Paul Ryan - The Fluffy Optimist
I was browsing the 'net today, looking at the headlines, reading the stories I found interesting, and I came across part of a speech given to Washington interns by Paul Ryan. I started reading and... my eyes glazed, refused to focus.
It was classic Ryan - idealistic and barely in touch with reality. Just more of what I've come to expect from him - fluff without a shred of substance that can hold up under pressure without putting people to sleep. What's encouraging is that I'm not the only one who thinks it's a load of crap. So do most other media outlets - Google it: paul ryan speech to interns.
Don't get me wrong - he's a very smart guy. Really smart. But he would make an excellent accountant someplace. He's too detaily and weedy and he's a blathering bore - even when he's trying to sound optimistic.
It's a lot like the Republican Establishment. Blather empty phrases and emptier promises and hope no one notices. They do it among themselves so much they've lost sight of the fact that we're smarter than that. There are only so many lies and fabrications we'll swallow and, for now, we're full up.
The lack of attention being paid to their cries and screams of derision regarding this election cycle - widely ignored by real people - led them to hold their Pinhead Confab last Thursday. The result? Well...
Kasich doesn't stand a chance - even if he gets to the convention. He's desperate and weak and the people will not vote for him in the general. Election to Hilliary.
Cruz is a sleaze, but he's an owned sleaze. He's as much in bed with the lobbyists and the people who run Washington as anyone else. Hell! $40M and counting owned - so he's distasteful but at least they can control him. 'Cross your fingers, boys, maybe he can beat Hilliary.'
Trump is a non-starter for them. He's challenging them at every turn, calling them out, speaking what's on his mind, taking no prisoners. And, despite what all of the chattering class are saying, I think when the general comes around and Trump is the nominee, he will have no trouble with Hilliary. After all, the woman is a walking baggage carousel. Pick a subject, there's a scandal and you can bet that Trump will go after all of them in one way or another.
So the Pinhead Confab concluded that their only possible hope is Cruz. Being desperate to keep the Barbarian from the Citadel, they've decided to make an uneasy truce with Cruz. He's not palatable because he's too rigid and intractable, but at least he's one of them - owned as they are by the Donor Class. So, they hold their noses as they gather 'round their... candidate.
What Ryan and the others don't get is that politics as usual - no matter how they sugarcoat the turd - is not doing it this year. We're not biting.
Trump correctly said on more than one occasion that Cruz has no friends in the Senate - that no one of his Senate colleagues was stepping up to endorse him. And it was true. Otherwise, where was all of the clamor to be first in line? He's been in the race for a full year - since March 23, 2015 when he announced his candidacy at Liberty University. Yet no one got on his bandwagon in all that time?
In what I suspect was a move of uneasy resignation, a toe in the water, Lindsey Graham came forward last week. The lamb to the slaughter no doubt sent by his Donor Class betters.
After all, he had already endorsed Jeb! who failed in spectacular fashion so, with his endorsement sitting on the shelf, he picked Cruz. Somehow, I just don't think his heart is in this. Today, during an interview on MSNBC, he waffled and said that Kasich would make a better president.
What!? He's endorsed Cruz, but... Well there's confidence for you.
And this is a major part of the problem in Washington. Instead of our employees - and they are supposed to be our employees (public servants) since we hire them through the election process and pay their salaries and benefits through taxation (theft worthy of another post all on its own) - standing for what's right, they run for what's expedient. In this case, they see the writing on the wall.
As much as they detest Cruz, they despise Trump more. Which means they will each sell another chunk of their souls and character to rally behind a man they wouldn't go to lunch with a month ago, even if Cruz was buying.
It was during last week's Pinhead Confab that they even tried to refloat the Hindenburg. There was chatter over the weekend suggesting that Paul Ryan could be 'floated' into the convention mix as the alternate candidate. That sugarcoated turd was ignored. The Hindenburg didn't rekindle, it just crashed.
Naturally, because of the deafening silence, Ryan 'declined'. Although I would wager my life that if anyone outside the Beltway had sat up, taken notice and shouted a resounding yeah!, he would now be in the headlines.
As a result, for better or for worse, Cruz is now their guy. But hey! At least a goodly part of his soul and character are owned. He will be taking calls from the K Street lobbyists and doing their bidding. At least that should make the Pinheads happy. It would be no change from what's been - we would still have a sugarcoated turd shoved down our throats if the Pinheads have their way.
So I'm back to watching the polls with fluttering nerves. I really do not want another interchangeable part to take the big chair in the Oval Office. I want a Trump presidency because I think he's going to shake things up, knock a few heads, and get us back on better footing than we've been.
As for you, if you're worried about the intestinal fortitude of your Congressman or woman backing a man who's got a tenuous attachment to truth, might I suggest you send along a few of these:
That would at least free up their hands.
Have a wonderful day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
It was classic Ryan - idealistic and barely in touch with reality. Just more of what I've come to expect from him - fluff without a shred of substance that can hold up under pressure without putting people to sleep. What's encouraging is that I'm not the only one who thinks it's a load of crap. So do most other media outlets - Google it: paul ryan speech to interns.
Don't get me wrong - he's a very smart guy. Really smart. But he would make an excellent accountant someplace. He's too detaily and weedy and he's a blathering bore - even when he's trying to sound optimistic.
It's a lot like the Republican Establishment. Blather empty phrases and emptier promises and hope no one notices. They do it among themselves so much they've lost sight of the fact that we're smarter than that. There are only so many lies and fabrications we'll swallow and, for now, we're full up.
The lack of attention being paid to their cries and screams of derision regarding this election cycle - widely ignored by real people - led them to hold their Pinhead Confab last Thursday. The result? Well...
Kasich doesn't stand a chance - even if he gets to the convention. He's desperate and weak and the people will not vote for him in the general. Election to Hilliary.
Cruz is a sleaze, but he's an owned sleaze. He's as much in bed with the lobbyists and the people who run Washington as anyone else. Hell! $40M and counting owned - so he's distasteful but at least they can control him. 'Cross your fingers, boys, maybe he can beat Hilliary.'
Trump is a non-starter for them. He's challenging them at every turn, calling them out, speaking what's on his mind, taking no prisoners. And, despite what all of the chattering class are saying, I think when the general comes around and Trump is the nominee, he will have no trouble with Hilliary. After all, the woman is a walking baggage carousel. Pick a subject, there's a scandal and you can bet that Trump will go after all of them in one way or another.
So the Pinhead Confab concluded that their only possible hope is Cruz. Being desperate to keep the Barbarian from the Citadel, they've decided to make an uneasy truce with Cruz. He's not palatable because he's too rigid and intractable, but at least he's one of them - owned as they are by the Donor Class. So, they hold their noses as they gather 'round their... candidate.
What Ryan and the others don't get is that politics as usual - no matter how they sugarcoat the turd - is not doing it this year. We're not biting.
Trump correctly said on more than one occasion that Cruz has no friends in the Senate - that no one of his Senate colleagues was stepping up to endorse him. And it was true. Otherwise, where was all of the clamor to be first in line? He's been in the race for a full year - since March 23, 2015 when he announced his candidacy at Liberty University. Yet no one got on his bandwagon in all that time?
In what I suspect was a move of uneasy resignation, a toe in the water, Lindsey Graham came forward last week. The lamb to the slaughter no doubt sent by his Donor Class betters.
After all, he had already endorsed Jeb! who failed in spectacular fashion so, with his endorsement sitting on the shelf, he picked Cruz. Somehow, I just don't think his heart is in this. Today, during an interview on MSNBC, he waffled and said that Kasich would make a better president.
What!? He's endorsed Cruz, but... Well there's confidence for you.
And this is a major part of the problem in Washington. Instead of our employees - and they are supposed to be our employees (public servants) since we hire them through the election process and pay their salaries and benefits through taxation (theft worthy of another post all on its own) - standing for what's right, they run for what's expedient. In this case, they see the writing on the wall.
As much as they detest Cruz, they despise Trump more. Which means they will each sell another chunk of their souls and character to rally behind a man they wouldn't go to lunch with a month ago, even if Cruz was buying.
It was during last week's Pinhead Confab that they even tried to refloat the Hindenburg. There was chatter over the weekend suggesting that Paul Ryan could be 'floated' into the convention mix as the alternate candidate. That sugarcoated turd was ignored. The Hindenburg didn't rekindle, it just crashed.
Naturally, because of the deafening silence, Ryan 'declined'. Although I would wager my life that if anyone outside the Beltway had sat up, taken notice and shouted a resounding yeah!, he would now be in the headlines.
As a result, for better or for worse, Cruz is now their guy. But hey! At least a goodly part of his soul and character are owned. He will be taking calls from the K Street lobbyists and doing their bidding. At least that should make the Pinheads happy. It would be no change from what's been - we would still have a sugarcoated turd shoved down our throats if the Pinheads have their way.
So I'm back to watching the polls with fluttering nerves. I really do not want another interchangeable part to take the big chair in the Oval Office. I want a Trump presidency because I think he's going to shake things up, knock a few heads, and get us back on better footing than we've been.
As for you, if you're worried about the intestinal fortitude of your Congressman or woman backing a man who's got a tenuous attachment to truth, might I suggest you send along a few of these:
That would at least free up their hands.
Have a wonderful day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Sunday, March 20, 2016
The Washington Elites Haven't Got A Clue
The asphyxiated pinheads in the bodies of Rich Lowry & Co., George Will, Bill Kristol, Erick Erickson et al. need to do at least a little fact finding before they thrust a stake in the ground and tie themselves to it. They've done this again and again by declaring that 'Donald Trump is not a conservative'.
Every week when he appears on Fox News Sunday, George Will pounds that drum - and today, he made it abundantly clear that he is a pinhead without the courage of his convictions.
When Chris Wallace asked in a round-about way if Will would vote for the Republican nominee even if it is Trump, Will said he would. Yet just a second before he said that nominating Trump at the convention would destroy the party.
Pick one side or the other George. Don't try to navigate the middle because there is no middle to find. This is a straight up-or-down, either-or choice. It is either another party cog - interchangeable with any other bought and paid for party cog and the 'R' or the 'D' after their name makes zero difference in the end - or an outsider who is speaking up for a lot of regular Americans.
In the past months - since expanding his political message beyond The Wall - Trump has talked about fair trade, getting deals in place between the US and our trading partners that work equally well for both parties. Well guess what - this is not a new position for him. He was saying the exact same thing twenty-seven years ago:
This doesn't sound like a 'liberal' to me. And don't take my take on it. How about Mary Alice Williams, a CNN political pundit at the 1988 RNC Convention who specifically said that Donald Trump is 'conservative'. A couple of minutes later, during this interview, Larry King described him as a 'Rockefeller Republican'.
So what is this lie being spread by the money men and their shills? (Yes, Rich and Bill and Erick and George, I am calling you and your talking pinhead buddies shills.)
The lie is being spread by the asphyxiated pinheads because Donald Trump scares the hell out of the Establishment.
If he does even half of what he says he'll do, that's going to strip power from the powerful and divert a whole lot of money away from Washington.
Programs sent back to the states where they belong will affect Energy and Education, Housing and Healthcare and that is as it should be. The Citizens of this country should wield the power over our own lives. We should not be the subjects of the politicians and lobbyists, the money men and their shills. We should not be satisfied with having them dictate to us how we should live our lives.
That is the movement behind Donald Trump. The idea that there is more, or that there should be more for those of us who are willing to work for it.
After all, just like millions of other Americans, I get up every morning and head out to work. I drive two hours per day to and from my job. I work my tail off when I'm there, and I haven't had a pay increase in years.
Instead, when I was laid off in 2012, in five minutes I went from making $30 per hour before benefits plus four weeks of paid time off, fully paid health and dental care - to living on $11.50 per hour in unemployment benefits. For five months after the watershed day of being told I was being let go after seventeen years, I took whatever temporary jobs came my way. Most paid just $14 and $15 an hour - and I counted myself lucky to get those because the competition for those jobs was so stiff.
Here I am four years later and, after working as a temporary employee for fifteen months, I was hired. I'm making 27% per hour less than I made before, with no employer paid healthcare and only two weeks of vacation. My life isn't better now than it was four years ago and my story is not at all unusual. I count myself lucky for finding a job - one for which I drive nearly eighty miles per day which costs me a lot of money in gas and wear and tear on my car.
I have been watching Trump since the fall. At first I wasn't thinking about who I would vote for. I just knew I wouldn't be voting for Hilliary. But listening to his message about illegal immigration and the wall, I began to pay attention. I began to feel hope - just a little - that this man might be the one to turn this country around.
This is why I like Donald Trump - what he's saying and what I think he'll do. I have hope when I listen to his message. It's hope that I haven't felt in more than two decades.
If American workers have good jobs with good companies that pay decent wages, we will all benefit.
If American workers aren't competing against low-wage illegals for jobs, if the wages go up for American workers, we all benefit. We'll have a stronger economy with more disposable income. If I had any disposable income - which I do not have at this time since every penny I bring home with me is allocated to paying my bills - I could go out for dinner occasionally. I could afford to buy new clothes occasionally. Maybe I could even afford a vacation - something I haven't had in nearly twenty years.
Yes, there are still a lot of brain-dead ninnies out here in the hinterlands. There are plenty of sheeple who like having things given to them. Sheeple who are willing to sit on their butts in some shabby little apartment because it's free or cheap instead of looking up and wanting more. But there are a lot of us who do want something more than we have, more than the government is willing to give to us.
That is what I want and what I think Trump can help be work for. Cruz won't. Cruz will be 100% interchangeable with Hilliary because he is owned by the lobbyists just as Hilliary is owned. Look for yourself. Here is what Ted has done - and look at the amount that has come from 'Super PACs and Others' - almost half of his money has come from lobbyists and special interests:
Yet here is what Trump has done:
Only 7% has been raised from 'Super PACs and Other Groups' - and those other groups are not lobbying groups.
Based on this, which of these candidates do you suppose is beholden to the special interests?
Even Hilliary hasn't raised as much from the Super PACs and lobbyists as Cruz has:
What does that say about Cruz's independence if he's elected?
As far as the trade deals The Donald has been talking about for nearly thirty years, his position is one that sounds like a pretty good position to take. After all, why should two parties in a deal have two different standards to meet? Shouldn't both have the same standards and requirements? Shouldn't both reap the same benefits? If not, if one party has an advantage over the other, gains extra benefits at the expense of the other party, how is that fair? Shouldn't America's politicians who have responsibility for making these deals try to strike the very best deal for us? They haven't. Not once and that is neither fair nor right.
That is what Trump is saying he wants for America and that is what I want for America.
So George and Bill and Rich and Erick - get over it. You don't run us. You don't own us, and neither do the money class who own you to the last hair on your head. We are not listening to you any more because what you're telling us is good for us, isn't and we're waking up to that little fact.
Other than that, I hope your day is wonderful.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Every week when he appears on Fox News Sunday, George Will pounds that drum - and today, he made it abundantly clear that he is a pinhead without the courage of his convictions.
When Chris Wallace asked in a round-about way if Will would vote for the Republican nominee even if it is Trump, Will said he would. Yet just a second before he said that nominating Trump at the convention would destroy the party.
Pick one side or the other George. Don't try to navigate the middle because there is no middle to find. This is a straight up-or-down, either-or choice. It is either another party cog - interchangeable with any other bought and paid for party cog and the 'R' or the 'D' after their name makes zero difference in the end - or an outsider who is speaking up for a lot of regular Americans.
In the past months - since expanding his political message beyond The Wall - Trump has talked about fair trade, getting deals in place between the US and our trading partners that work equally well for both parties. Well guess what - this is not a new position for him. He was saying the exact same thing twenty-seven years ago:
This doesn't sound like a 'liberal' to me. And don't take my take on it. How about Mary Alice Williams, a CNN political pundit at the 1988 RNC Convention who specifically said that Donald Trump is 'conservative'. A couple of minutes later, during this interview, Larry King described him as a 'Rockefeller Republican'.
So what is this lie being spread by the money men and their shills? (Yes, Rich and Bill and Erick and George, I am calling you and your talking pinhead buddies shills.)
The lie is being spread by the asphyxiated pinheads because Donald Trump scares the hell out of the Establishment.
If he does even half of what he says he'll do, that's going to strip power from the powerful and divert a whole lot of money away from Washington.
Programs sent back to the states where they belong will affect Energy and Education, Housing and Healthcare and that is as it should be. The Citizens of this country should wield the power over our own lives. We should not be the subjects of the politicians and lobbyists, the money men and their shills. We should not be satisfied with having them dictate to us how we should live our lives.
That is the movement behind Donald Trump. The idea that there is more, or that there should be more for those of us who are willing to work for it.
After all, just like millions of other Americans, I get up every morning and head out to work. I drive two hours per day to and from my job. I work my tail off when I'm there, and I haven't had a pay increase in years.
Instead, when I was laid off in 2012, in five minutes I went from making $30 per hour before benefits plus four weeks of paid time off, fully paid health and dental care - to living on $11.50 per hour in unemployment benefits. For five months after the watershed day of being told I was being let go after seventeen years, I took whatever temporary jobs came my way. Most paid just $14 and $15 an hour - and I counted myself lucky to get those because the competition for those jobs was so stiff.
Here I am four years later and, after working as a temporary employee for fifteen months, I was hired. I'm making 27% per hour less than I made before, with no employer paid healthcare and only two weeks of vacation. My life isn't better now than it was four years ago and my story is not at all unusual. I count myself lucky for finding a job - one for which I drive nearly eighty miles per day which costs me a lot of money in gas and wear and tear on my car.
I have been watching Trump since the fall. At first I wasn't thinking about who I would vote for. I just knew I wouldn't be voting for Hilliary. But listening to his message about illegal immigration and the wall, I began to pay attention. I began to feel hope - just a little - that this man might be the one to turn this country around.
This is why I like Donald Trump - what he's saying and what I think he'll do. I have hope when I listen to his message. It's hope that I haven't felt in more than two decades.
If American workers have good jobs with good companies that pay decent wages, we will all benefit.
If American workers aren't competing against low-wage illegals for jobs, if the wages go up for American workers, we all benefit. We'll have a stronger economy with more disposable income. If I had any disposable income - which I do not have at this time since every penny I bring home with me is allocated to paying my bills - I could go out for dinner occasionally. I could afford to buy new clothes occasionally. Maybe I could even afford a vacation - something I haven't had in nearly twenty years.
Yes, there are still a lot of brain-dead ninnies out here in the hinterlands. There are plenty of sheeple who like having things given to them. Sheeple who are willing to sit on their butts in some shabby little apartment because it's free or cheap instead of looking up and wanting more. But there are a lot of us who do want something more than we have, more than the government is willing to give to us.
That is what I want and what I think Trump can help be work for. Cruz won't. Cruz will be 100% interchangeable with Hilliary because he is owned by the lobbyists just as Hilliary is owned. Look for yourself. Here is what Ted has done - and look at the amount that has come from 'Super PACs and Others' - almost half of his money has come from lobbyists and special interests:
Based on this, which of these candidates do you suppose is beholden to the special interests?
Even Hilliary hasn't raised as much from the Super PACs and lobbyists as Cruz has:
As far as the trade deals The Donald has been talking about for nearly thirty years, his position is one that sounds like a pretty good position to take. After all, why should two parties in a deal have two different standards to meet? Shouldn't both have the same standards and requirements? Shouldn't both reap the same benefits? If not, if one party has an advantage over the other, gains extra benefits at the expense of the other party, how is that fair? Shouldn't America's politicians who have responsibility for making these deals try to strike the very best deal for us? They haven't. Not once and that is neither fair nor right.
That is what Trump is saying he wants for America and that is what I want for America.
So George and Bill and Rich and Erick - get over it. You don't run us. You don't own us, and neither do the money class who own you to the last hair on your head. We are not listening to you any more because what you're telling us is good for us, isn't and we're waking up to that little fact.
Other than that, I hope your day is wonderful.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Saturday, March 19, 2016
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
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
Thursday, March 17, 2016
The Fray is Getting a Bit Crowded
After Trump's victories on Tuesday the liberal media and their major stockholders seem to be having major heart palpitations. This morning there was a meeting of The Donors who are most affected. Allegedly, this isn't just a friendly get-together. According to a number of people in the know it's to discuss ways they might be able to 'steal' this election from the GOP front runners.
For Cruz, I don't care. For Trump, I do.
Because the right-leaning insiders who control the GOP don't believe Trump's heart and political views are in the 'right place' according to their standards, they are on the verge of creating a wave of blow-back the likes of which haven't been seen in this country since at least the 1960's. And, what they don't understand, is that it is NOT Donald Trump's fault or doing.
It is solely and strictly because of the nonsense and machinations emanating from the Washington Beltway - which is at the exact epicenter for this whole election year of dissent.
What they have either forgotten or are choosing to ignore because they don't like it, any American citizen has the right and privilege to run for President. The Constitution does not stipulate that you must wheel and deal your way into office, or sell your soul to the highest bidders. Under the Founding documents, The Donald has just as much right to run for office and be elected as anyone else - be it Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or one of the Bush family.
Curly Haugland, the RNC's National Committee's Rules Chairman announced on CNBC yesterday that 'the party will decide who the GOP nominee will be'. He said, flat-out, the RNC Donor Class is going decide who's going to run under the Republican banner after the convention - and the voters can all just go to hell.
That's a jaw-dropper to me and to a lot of other people who have a bigger platform for spreading the news. Already the question has been asked, 'if the party chooses, why bother with primaries?' I think we can agree that's a pretty damned good question. His response? 'That's a very good question.'
Bottom line, based on what my pea-brain is deciphering from all the chatter about this and the brokered convention is that:
In the primaries, candidates win delegates. Some states apportion them to each delegate based on what percent of the vote that delegate won in that state's caucus or election. Other states are 'winner-take-all'. These delegates are 'bound' to that candidate through to the party convention.
If the candidate quits the race, the delegates are released and can either be 'given' to another candidate through endorsement or other wheeling-and-dealing (what we all love about Washington politics, right?).
If a candidate suspends his campaign - as Rubio has done - he still holds onto those delegates and can use them for leverage come a brokered convention.
At the convention they count up the delegates. If one of the candidates has a clear victory with 1,237 delegates won through the primary process, it's over and done. Yippee, we have a candidate and everyone rallies around, pulling out the hatchets buried and knives thrown in the lead-up.
If no candidate has that magic number, then there's horsetrading that takes place. And this is where it could blow up in the face of the GOP / RNC owners. Those owners being the donors and not you and me.
Let's say Donald gets there with 1,157 delegates. He's close - really close - and millions more people have voted for him than have voted against him but what happens?
Well, he's not the clear winner despite millions of voters marking his name however it's done in their polling place. So, they have a ballot - an election within an election. The bound delegates vote for their guy - like him or not - and no one gets the clear majority again - unless someone steps forward with enough delegates and pledges those delegates to the person they want to see win and become the candidate.
It's convoluted as hell and, as with all things associated with the Constitution, is pretty damned brilliant. It's called the Electoral College and it's a tried and true tradition, even though I think it's really going to pinch hard come this summer. The Founders put it in place to keep a simple majority from taking over this country and running it as they see fit, no matter what the other 49% of the population want.
That's how Bush II "won" the still-disputed-in-some-circles 2000 election. The Electoral College looked at him and at Al Gore, decided Bush II was the lesser of two evils and gave him the nod. Which led to Gore famously throwing a tantrum through the courts and his acolytes swearing to this day that the election was 'stolen'.
Well, this year it might just be the Republicans turn to see it happen to them. The difference is, and it is a HUGE difference, is that it is not a party-to-party theft. It would be a theft within the party which will drive me and I suspect millions of other people away from the party for good and all.
Me? If they pull a stunt like that, I will go out the day after the results of the convention are known and I will re-register as an Independent. I will no longer proudly call myself a Republican because the load of straws is really heavy this year. One more and...
I suspect it is and will be the same for a lot of other people, too.
No matter. The GOP will no longer exist as it's been.
The controllers will be outed. The futility of participation will be shown, loud and clear, and the last vestige of decency, fairness and honesty will implode with a resounding kaboom.
Through their obstinacy and demand that the American voters who support Trump fall in line, they will sure as hell guarantee a win for Hilliary Clinton - along with Obie-One's successful nomination of a wild-liberal Supreme Court Justice.
I am sure that is a deal that is already under discussion along the lines of 'if you keep Loretta Lynch from indicting me, I'll let you call the SCOTUS nomination before you leave office'. Why not? Whoever he chooses will probably be palatable to her. It's a win-win for them and, as I said the other day in relation to this, will guarantee that the face of America will change forever - and not for the better.
Our borders will be gone. Our sovereignty will be gone. All of those illegals here already will gain citizenship and the American economy will devolve to a third-world state within a matter of years.
That is what is at stake in this election and I, for one, do not want to see the Donors do this to our country but I will not participate in another exercise in futility if they put up someone like Ted Cruz or Marco or Bush or anyone else who I know cannot stand, fight and win against Hilliary and the rest of the world. Instead, I will carefully and legibly write Donald Trump's name on my ballot and pray that the vast majority of other Americans will do the same.
Now - I wish you a lovely day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
For Cruz, I don't care. For Trump, I do.
Because the right-leaning insiders who control the GOP don't believe Trump's heart and political views are in the 'right place' according to their standards, they are on the verge of creating a wave of blow-back the likes of which haven't been seen in this country since at least the 1960's. And, what they don't understand, is that it is NOT Donald Trump's fault or doing.
It is solely and strictly because of the nonsense and machinations emanating from the Washington Beltway - which is at the exact epicenter for this whole election year of dissent.
What they have either forgotten or are choosing to ignore because they don't like it, any American citizen has the right and privilege to run for President. The Constitution does not stipulate that you must wheel and deal your way into office, or sell your soul to the highest bidders. Under the Founding documents, The Donald has just as much right to run for office and be elected as anyone else - be it Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or one of the Bush family.
Curly Haugland, the RNC's National Committee's Rules Chairman announced on CNBC yesterday that 'the party will decide who the GOP nominee will be'. He said, flat-out, the RNC Donor Class is going decide who's going to run under the Republican banner after the convention - and the voters can all just go to hell.
That's a jaw-dropper to me and to a lot of other people who have a bigger platform for spreading the news. Already the question has been asked, 'if the party chooses, why bother with primaries?' I think we can agree that's a pretty damned good question. His response? 'That's a very good question.'
Bottom line, based on what my pea-brain is deciphering from all the chatter about this and the brokered convention is that:
In the primaries, candidates win delegates. Some states apportion them to each delegate based on what percent of the vote that delegate won in that state's caucus or election. Other states are 'winner-take-all'. These delegates are 'bound' to that candidate through to the party convention.
If the candidate quits the race, the delegates are released and can either be 'given' to another candidate through endorsement or other wheeling-and-dealing (what we all love about Washington politics, right?).
If a candidate suspends his campaign - as Rubio has done - he still holds onto those delegates and can use them for leverage come a brokered convention.
At the convention they count up the delegates. If one of the candidates has a clear victory with 1,237 delegates won through the primary process, it's over and done. Yippee, we have a candidate and everyone rallies around, pulling out the hatchets buried and knives thrown in the lead-up.
If no candidate has that magic number, then there's horsetrading that takes place. And this is where it could blow up in the face of the GOP / RNC owners. Those owners being the donors and not you and me.
Let's say Donald gets there with 1,157 delegates. He's close - really close - and millions more people have voted for him than have voted against him but what happens?
Well, he's not the clear winner despite millions of voters marking his name however it's done in their polling place. So, they have a ballot - an election within an election. The bound delegates vote for their guy - like him or not - and no one gets the clear majority again - unless someone steps forward with enough delegates and pledges those delegates to the person they want to see win and become the candidate.
It's convoluted as hell and, as with all things associated with the Constitution, is pretty damned brilliant. It's called the Electoral College and it's a tried and true tradition, even though I think it's really going to pinch hard come this summer. The Founders put it in place to keep a simple majority from taking over this country and running it as they see fit, no matter what the other 49% of the population want.
That's how Bush II "won" the still-disputed-in-some-circles 2000 election. The Electoral College looked at him and at Al Gore, decided Bush II was the lesser of two evils and gave him the nod. Which led to Gore famously throwing a tantrum through the courts and his acolytes swearing to this day that the election was 'stolen'.
Well, this year it might just be the Republicans turn to see it happen to them. The difference is, and it is a HUGE difference, is that it is not a party-to-party theft. It would be a theft within the party which will drive me and I suspect millions of other people away from the party for good and all.
Me? If they pull a stunt like that, I will go out the day after the results of the convention are known and I will re-register as an Independent. I will no longer proudly call myself a Republican because the load of straws is really heavy this year. One more and...
I suspect it is and will be the same for a lot of other people, too.
No matter. The GOP will no longer exist as it's been.
The controllers will be outed. The futility of participation will be shown, loud and clear, and the last vestige of decency, fairness and honesty will implode with a resounding kaboom.
Through their obstinacy and demand that the American voters who support Trump fall in line, they will sure as hell guarantee a win for Hilliary Clinton - along with Obie-One's successful nomination of a wild-liberal Supreme Court Justice.
I am sure that is a deal that is already under discussion along the lines of 'if you keep Loretta Lynch from indicting me, I'll let you call the SCOTUS nomination before you leave office'. Why not? Whoever he chooses will probably be palatable to her. It's a win-win for them and, as I said the other day in relation to this, will guarantee that the face of America will change forever - and not for the better.
Our borders will be gone. Our sovereignty will be gone. All of those illegals here already will gain citizenship and the American economy will devolve to a third-world state within a matter of years.
That is what is at stake in this election and I, for one, do not want to see the Donors do this to our country but I will not participate in another exercise in futility if they put up someone like Ted Cruz or Marco or Bush or anyone else who I know cannot stand, fight and win against Hilliary and the rest of the world. Instead, I will carefully and legibly write Donald Trump's name on my ballot and pray that the vast majority of other Americans will do the same.
Now - I wish you a lovely day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Monday, March 14, 2016
Ted Cruz - Why Are You Talking Smack About Me?
*Huge Sigh* Here we go again. Someone else talking smack about a swath of people they don't know.
Mr. Cruz, you would do well to listen to your own words: 'You can't insult your way to the White House'. True then and just as true now.
This weekend you pissed me and a lot of people like me off by effectively telling us we're 'stupid' for not supporting you or some other interchangeable part in the Washington machine.
Please trust me when I say that I am neither 'low-information' or 'uneducated'. It is a gross insult for you to tell me that I am. This is not how to 'Win Friends and Influence People' like me. This is a good way to make me angry.
And the media are playing into your narrative - obviously told to do so by their bosses because all weekend long it was how wonderful everyone else is and how bad Trump is.
Whatever happened to media objectivity? Whatever happened to balanced reporting, giving both sides of the equation or event so people can make up their own minds?
Oh, I don't expect anything like objectivity, intellectual honesty or balance from most of the cable or broadcast networks. They've long since proven they are ethically bankrupt when it comes to journalism.
But didn't Fox used to have the slogan 'Fair and Balanced'? I notice they don't claim that anymore. If they did, it would clearly be in violation of the truth in advertising laws.
Nope. They're just as corrupt and journalistically immoral as the other networks. Which is upsetting because I no longer have a place to go for my news coverage.
I became so disgusted this weekend that I turned my television off. And it's off now, even though I would like to know what's going on. Except I don't want to hear a bunch of tilted 'truth', outright lies and propaganda about why Trump is a disaster and why everyone else is such a better choice for America.
My attitudes and beliefs are tired. I don't want another assault.
As far as MoveOn.org disrupting Trump's rally in Chicago Friday night, that started this boycott for me. All weekend the story was how Trump brought this on himself and how he's inflaming people.
Gimme a break. If that had been anyone else's rally, the news would have been the same but I suspect the narrative would have been very different. Instead of blaming the candidate - who still has the right to be publicly obnoxious if he chooses - they would have been talking about the protesters and how 'un-American' it is to prevent public discourse.
Nope. All weekend the discussions were about how Donald Trump incited this and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
It's disgusting.
Well - I wasn't going to vote for Cruz before anyway because he's sleazy. Rubio is showing his colors - he knows he's going to lose, so he's telling people to vote for Kasich in Ohio. It's pathetic to see.
What has become crystal clear to me given their 'vote for anyone but' campaign is that our traditional choices for president are a) desperate; b) in the back pocket of the Elites; and c) are entirely interchangeable in how they would govern.
A glaring question this raises is how the hell will these pantywaists stand up to or deal with Vlad or Assad or anyone with a set of stones if they can't deal with politics here at home?
Given the events this weekend and Cruz's declaration that I'm stupid, I'll stay home come election day in November if he's the nominee.
Right now, though, I hope that a lot of people heard that same thing, and that they took it the same way I did. If so, people will be galvanized for Trump, not scared away.
Just as Trump hasn't been scared away by what happened on Friday night, or on Saturday when some idiot rushed the stage during one of his speeches.
Better still were a couple of moments from Trump rallies this weekend. I encourage you to watch because I think they define the character of this man far better than his words. I did try to find the shortest videos I could, but the first is about two-and-a-half minutes, the second is about two minutes and the third is about ten minutes (but it feels like two minutes).
What I want to know, is what other political candidate has such a natural touch with people? I don't see anyone else doing this kind of thing, and it's this kind of thing that makes me like Trump. To me, that is a man's decency and humanity on display.
As for 'moments' this weekend, this was the best - it's nine minutes of unadulterated passion:
Naturally, the cynics will say the first two were staged, but I was watching both of those rallies and I do not buy that. The feel of those interactions in the entire context of the event is spontaneous, not planned.
The pastor in the last clip speaks what I feel and he does it with the same passion I feel.
America is at a crossroads and if we go straight on with more of the same, we will be lost.
I may not have a college education, but that was by choice not by limitation of intelligence. Having worked with and for highly educated people, I can categorically state that a college diploma does not confer intelligence.
Cruz insulted a lot of voters this weekend - millions of us. There are a lot of small business owners - plumbers and construction workers and repairmen and all sorts of other tradespeople who don't have college degrees. Those people have to be smart in order to be successful and many of them have already voted for Trump.
The issues for me, I've already outlined them. I've said why I like Trump and why I think he's going to be a good if not a great president. Could I be wrong? Of course I could, but hope is what keeps people going from day to day.
Why I don't like Cruz is that he is a liar.
Plain and simple, any politician with four Super PACs backing his campaign means that he is just as owned as all the other politicians. He is owned and he will do what the donors to his campaign tell him to do - there is no escaping it.
Just like every other politician up for re-election this year, he's a liar.
He said that he was going to go to Washington and make big changes. Bullshit. He's been there already and nothing changed.
He promised to repeal and replace Obamacare. It's still in full force, even though we've had a Republican controlled Congress for the past two years.
There is a thick cloud of dust around his stance on illegal immigration. He says he wants to stop it but I have a HUGE wall of doubt about that.
What has he done about it? What change has been effected? Where's the wall?
He hasn't said what he's going to do in specific terms. Only recently has he said wall, and that is in small letters. He is not talking about it as the major issue that's affecting our entire economy with American citizens receiving lower wages because they have to compete for jobs against illegal immigrants.
Instead, the wall and immigration are both off in a side room playing go fish. And that speaks volumes to me. Obviously, it's not a priority and, since it's not, nothing will change if he's elected. Oh, except for amnesty for everyone who's already here.
That will be followed, inevitably, by another wave of illegals. It will be the same thing that happened after Reagan waved the wand and gave a pass to people who had no right to be here. The next wave will just have to be patient and wait a few years until it's their turn to be given a pass.
I do like his flat tax plan, but he's not the only one promoting that, and when he talks about abolishing the IRS he's lying - he can't abolish that agency. He's going to need some instrument to collect the taxes and distribute them.
Fascinating times, these days, what with Chicago on Friday night and all of the open anti-Trump discourse across my television screen all weekend. At this point I'm exhausted, worn out from the relentless assault, fabrications, obfuscation and flat out lies being spewed.
So I took the day off yesterday. I listened to music and played video games and now I'm ready for the week. I just pray that when I wake up Wednesday morning, Trump's delegate lead is more substantial than it is now and that his path to the nomination is clearer.
If not, if we end up at a contested or brokered convention come summer, my television will go off and stay off and I will stay at home on election day. As I said the other day, I will not actively participate in tearing down my own house by voting for someone who's just another cog in the mechanism that's driving this country toward a cliff.
I think I'll go listen to Boccherini's 'Fandango' to lift my spirits while I get ready for work. Have a wonderful day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Mr. Cruz, you would do well to listen to your own words: 'You can't insult your way to the White House'. True then and just as true now.
This weekend you pissed me and a lot of people like me off by effectively telling us we're 'stupid' for not supporting you or some other interchangeable part in the Washington machine.
Please trust me when I say that I am neither 'low-information' or 'uneducated'. It is a gross insult for you to tell me that I am. This is not how to 'Win Friends and Influence People' like me. This is a good way to make me angry.
And the media are playing into your narrative - obviously told to do so by their bosses because all weekend long it was how wonderful everyone else is and how bad Trump is.
Whatever happened to media objectivity? Whatever happened to balanced reporting, giving both sides of the equation or event so people can make up their own minds?
Oh, I don't expect anything like objectivity, intellectual honesty or balance from most of the cable or broadcast networks. They've long since proven they are ethically bankrupt when it comes to journalism.
But didn't Fox used to have the slogan 'Fair and Balanced'? I notice they don't claim that anymore. If they did, it would clearly be in violation of the truth in advertising laws.
Nope. They're just as corrupt and journalistically immoral as the other networks. Which is upsetting because I no longer have a place to go for my news coverage.
I became so disgusted this weekend that I turned my television off. And it's off now, even though I would like to know what's going on. Except I don't want to hear a bunch of tilted 'truth', outright lies and propaganda about why Trump is a disaster and why everyone else is such a better choice for America.
My attitudes and beliefs are tired. I don't want another assault.
As far as MoveOn.org disrupting Trump's rally in Chicago Friday night, that started this boycott for me. All weekend the story was how Trump brought this on himself and how he's inflaming people.
Gimme a break. If that had been anyone else's rally, the news would have been the same but I suspect the narrative would have been very different. Instead of blaming the candidate - who still has the right to be publicly obnoxious if he chooses - they would have been talking about the protesters and how 'un-American' it is to prevent public discourse.
Nope. All weekend the discussions were about how Donald Trump incited this and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
It's disgusting.
Well - I wasn't going to vote for Cruz before anyway because he's sleazy. Rubio is showing his colors - he knows he's going to lose, so he's telling people to vote for Kasich in Ohio. It's pathetic to see.
What has become crystal clear to me given their 'vote for anyone but' campaign is that our traditional choices for president are a) desperate; b) in the back pocket of the Elites; and c) are entirely interchangeable in how they would govern.
A glaring question this raises is how the hell will these pantywaists stand up to or deal with Vlad or Assad or anyone with a set of stones if they can't deal with politics here at home?
Given the events this weekend and Cruz's declaration that I'm stupid, I'll stay home come election day in November if he's the nominee.
Right now, though, I hope that a lot of people heard that same thing, and that they took it the same way I did. If so, people will be galvanized for Trump, not scared away.
Just as Trump hasn't been scared away by what happened on Friday night, or on Saturday when some idiot rushed the stage during one of his speeches.
Better still were a couple of moments from Trump rallies this weekend. I encourage you to watch because I think they define the character of this man far better than his words. I did try to find the shortest videos I could, but the first is about two-and-a-half minutes, the second is about two minutes and the third is about ten minutes (but it feels like two minutes).
What I want to know, is what other political candidate has such a natural touch with people? I don't see anyone else doing this kind of thing, and it's this kind of thing that makes me like Trump. To me, that is a man's decency and humanity on display.
As for 'moments' this weekend, this was the best - it's nine minutes of unadulterated passion:
Naturally, the cynics will say the first two were staged, but I was watching both of those rallies and I do not buy that. The feel of those interactions in the entire context of the event is spontaneous, not planned.
The pastor in the last clip speaks what I feel and he does it with the same passion I feel.
America is at a crossroads and if we go straight on with more of the same, we will be lost.
I may not have a college education, but that was by choice not by limitation of intelligence. Having worked with and for highly educated people, I can categorically state that a college diploma does not confer intelligence.
Cruz insulted a lot of voters this weekend - millions of us. There are a lot of small business owners - plumbers and construction workers and repairmen and all sorts of other tradespeople who don't have college degrees. Those people have to be smart in order to be successful and many of them have already voted for Trump.
The issues for me, I've already outlined them. I've said why I like Trump and why I think he's going to be a good if not a great president. Could I be wrong? Of course I could, but hope is what keeps people going from day to day.
Why I don't like Cruz is that he is a liar.
Plain and simple, any politician with four Super PACs backing his campaign means that he is just as owned as all the other politicians. He is owned and he will do what the donors to his campaign tell him to do - there is no escaping it.
Just like every other politician up for re-election this year, he's a liar.
He said that he was going to go to Washington and make big changes. Bullshit. He's been there already and nothing changed.
He promised to repeal and replace Obamacare. It's still in full force, even though we've had a Republican controlled Congress for the past two years.
There is a thick cloud of dust around his stance on illegal immigration. He says he wants to stop it but I have a HUGE wall of doubt about that.
What has he done about it? What change has been effected? Where's the wall?
He hasn't said what he's going to do in specific terms. Only recently has he said wall, and that is in small letters. He is not talking about it as the major issue that's affecting our entire economy with American citizens receiving lower wages because they have to compete for jobs against illegal immigrants.
Instead, the wall and immigration are both off in a side room playing go fish. And that speaks volumes to me. Obviously, it's not a priority and, since it's not, nothing will change if he's elected. Oh, except for amnesty for everyone who's already here.
That will be followed, inevitably, by another wave of illegals. It will be the same thing that happened after Reagan waved the wand and gave a pass to people who had no right to be here. The next wave will just have to be patient and wait a few years until it's their turn to be given a pass.
I do like his flat tax plan, but he's not the only one promoting that, and when he talks about abolishing the IRS he's lying - he can't abolish that agency. He's going to need some instrument to collect the taxes and distribute them.
Fascinating times, these days, what with Chicago on Friday night and all of the open anti-Trump discourse across my television screen all weekend. At this point I'm exhausted, worn out from the relentless assault, fabrications, obfuscation and flat out lies being spewed.
So I took the day off yesterday. I listened to music and played video games and now I'm ready for the week. I just pray that when I wake up Wednesday morning, Trump's delegate lead is more substantial than it is now and that his path to the nomination is clearer.
If not, if we end up at a contested or brokered convention come summer, my television will go off and stay off and I will stay at home on election day. As I said the other day, I will not actively participate in tearing down my own house by voting for someone who's just another cog in the mechanism that's driving this country toward a cliff.
I think I'll go listen to Boccherini's 'Fandango' to lift my spirits while I get ready for work. Have a wonderful day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Saturday, March 12, 2016
George Soros, MoveOn.org = Fascism
Yesterday's events in Chicago were both shocking and disgusting.
I was at work when I first heard about them. Then I got home to the video that all the cable news networks were looping in continuous feed - showing a bunch of modern day brownshirts doing at a Trump rally what Hitler's supporters used to do against the opposition when Hitler was rising in power.
That's right - the people who were out protesting at and preventing the Trump rally from taking place yesterday were acting like Nazi brownshirts - the predecessor to the Nazi SS.
Taken direct from Wikipedia:
The Sturmabteilung (SA; German pronunciation: [ˈʃtʊɐ̯mʔapˌtaɪlʊŋ] (
listen); literally "Storm Detachment") functioned as the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party.
It played a significant role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Their primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties, fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties, especially the Red Front Fighters League of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), and intimidating Slavic and Romani citizens, unionists, and Jews – for instance, during the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung
Just as the brownshirts did in the 1920s and 1930, these people were out last night, disrupting a peaceful meeting of an opposing party, intimidating people for wanting to hear what one man had to say.
This is how fascists behave and many in the left-wing media are supporting them. Salon and others. What's more disgusting though, is that many media outlets and the other presidential candidates are blaming Trump.
They're not blaming George Soros or his MoveOn organization and the other organizers of this. No. They're out there calling the victim of the rape the criminal - saying it's Trump's fault those people were there.
What the hell are they saying? I thought blaming the victim for being raped went out decades ago. Hilliary, with her long-standing look-the-other way attitude when it comes to sexual assault and rape doesn't surprise me. What's worse than anything is that Cruz, Rubio and Kasich are doing the same - blaming the victim.
Excuse me guys?? You are running for office. If you win, you will place your left hand on the Bible and swear to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution - including the First Amendment rights to peaceable assembly and free speech. But you are saying that a man who wants to exercise his right under the First Amendment to the Constitution is at fault for being suppressed? Excuse me?
That's even more shocking than what I saw on my news feed last night.
What is worse for America is that it has become apparent that Saul Alinsky and his minions are succeeding. They haven't won, yet, but they just took a huge step forward with last night and the media coverage.
We have swung back toward Nazi Germany with its suppression of free speech and free thought. With last night's success the protesters will be emboldened. Others will join in and if this isn't stopped we will soon have a country where only the left can speak out or speak up. The right and people with views differing from others will be silenced.
We have already seen this take place over the past several years on college campuses - the so-called incubators of discovery where differing ideas used to be encouraged to broaden the horizons of students. Unless, of course, you're a conservative. Then you're not allowed to speak.
Ben Shapiro, a conservative commentator for Breitbart, was asked to speak at the University of California in Los Angeles just last month. He was prevented from speaking and people interested in hearing what he had to say were prevented from listening by an unruly crowd. Their rights were suppressed while the media covered the mob. The media did not point out the obvious: that this was an up-front, outright attack against the First Amendment rights by one group over another.
There are other instances of this kind of behavior and they are becoming more frequent.
What can we do? Well, a first good step would be to speak out against this kind of behavior. To call it what it is without shame or fear of offending. If we start to speak up, to say 'what you're doing is wrong because you are oppressing me and my rights', maybe we can turn this tide. But if we don't, if we meekly capitulate to the vermin, we will end up with no right - silenced while the fascists rule.
Something to think about.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
I was at work when I first heard about them. Then I got home to the video that all the cable news networks were looping in continuous feed - showing a bunch of modern day brownshirts doing at a Trump rally what Hitler's supporters used to do against the opposition when Hitler was rising in power.
That's right - the people who were out protesting at and preventing the Trump rally from taking place yesterday were acting like Nazi brownshirts - the predecessor to the Nazi SS.
Taken direct from Wikipedia:
The Sturmabteilung (SA; German pronunciation: [ˈʃtʊɐ̯mʔapˌtaɪlʊŋ] (
listen); literally "Storm Detachment") functioned as the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party.It played a significant role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Their primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties, fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties, especially the Red Front Fighters League of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), and intimidating Slavic and Romani citizens, unionists, and Jews – for instance, during the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung
Just as the brownshirts did in the 1920s and 1930, these people were out last night, disrupting a peaceful meeting of an opposing party, intimidating people for wanting to hear what one man had to say.
This is how fascists behave and many in the left-wing media are supporting them. Salon and others. What's more disgusting though, is that many media outlets and the other presidential candidates are blaming Trump.
They're not blaming George Soros or his MoveOn organization and the other organizers of this. No. They're out there calling the victim of the rape the criminal - saying it's Trump's fault those people were there.
What the hell are they saying? I thought blaming the victim for being raped went out decades ago. Hilliary, with her long-standing look-the-other way attitude when it comes to sexual assault and rape doesn't surprise me. What's worse than anything is that Cruz, Rubio and Kasich are doing the same - blaming the victim.
Excuse me guys?? You are running for office. If you win, you will place your left hand on the Bible and swear to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution - including the First Amendment rights to peaceable assembly and free speech. But you are saying that a man who wants to exercise his right under the First Amendment to the Constitution is at fault for being suppressed? Excuse me?
That's even more shocking than what I saw on my news feed last night.
What is worse for America is that it has become apparent that Saul Alinsky and his minions are succeeding. They haven't won, yet, but they just took a huge step forward with last night and the media coverage.
We have swung back toward Nazi Germany with its suppression of free speech and free thought. With last night's success the protesters will be emboldened. Others will join in and if this isn't stopped we will soon have a country where only the left can speak out or speak up. The right and people with views differing from others will be silenced.
We have already seen this take place over the past several years on college campuses - the so-called incubators of discovery where differing ideas used to be encouraged to broaden the horizons of students. Unless, of course, you're a conservative. Then you're not allowed to speak.
Ben Shapiro, a conservative commentator for Breitbart, was asked to speak at the University of California in Los Angeles just last month. He was prevented from speaking and people interested in hearing what he had to say were prevented from listening by an unruly crowd. Their rights were suppressed while the media covered the mob. The media did not point out the obvious: that this was an up-front, outright attack against the First Amendment rights by one group over another.
There are other instances of this kind of behavior and they are becoming more frequent.
What can we do? Well, a first good step would be to speak out against this kind of behavior. To call it what it is without shame or fear of offending. If we start to speak up, to say 'what you're doing is wrong because you are oppressing me and my rights', maybe we can turn this tide. But if we don't, if we meekly capitulate to the vermin, we will end up with no right - silenced while the fascists rule.
Something to think about.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)