Bilderbergers, Romney and the Establishment

If you don't know who or what the Bilderbergers are and how they relate to our Presidential election, Mitt Romney, the National Review (Rich Lowry & Co.) and world politics, here's a brief primer. Before I start, I will say this is a snapshot view. I haven't studied them in depth. I've heard about them for years but have never dug into the group until today. There is plenty of solid information out there - non-conspiracy theorist sources - on the 'net if you choose to delve more deeply.

In a nutshell, the Bilderberg group was most recently established in 1954. One journalist (Daniel Estulin) claims that it goes back centuries, to the 'Black Monks of Venice'. I haven't delved that deeply but there's a book by him that's available from Amazon and a fairly brief RT News interview with him available on YouTube.

It is a group that has been, for the most part, highly secretive. They hold annual meetings in places that can be locked down and heavily guarded without too much trouble.

Members include bankers, industry leaders, including computer and internet industry leaders, and politicians from around the world. The list is impressive and represents almost every single country with a dime on the planet. These are the richest of the rich, the most powerful of the powerful and I have little doubt that they like the drug of power and wouldn't mind more.

In any case, back to current day and current events.

According to the Guardian newspaper, Romney attended the 2012 Bilderberg meeting when he was running for president.

Obama attended Bilderberg meetings. So did the Bush father (who is a member) and son and, if Bush III had gotten the RNC nod this summer, he would have gone to worship at the feet of these people.

This is a group of people who, based on every opinion I have found across the web - conspiracy theorists to journalists - for all intents and purposes want to control the world. Not necessary rule the world, but at least control it.

This list from Wikipedia is, I suspect, incomplete, but it makes for interesting reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_participants

They pick our political leaders - Romney was run by the Bilderbergers in 2012. In 2008 it was Hilliary Clinton. Too bad for the Bilderbergers, but her run was subverted by the damned sheeple who decided to go for the 'good-looking articulate black guy' (Joe Biden's words, not mine, thank you). So Hilliary is back now and it's looking like she's a shoo-in for the Democrat nomination no matter what the sheeple want in Bernie.

Aside: Bernie doesn't look or sound all that interested, anyway. Otherwise, why isn't he hitting Hilliary loud and hard on her e-mail mess? Could it be that the non-lovefest meeting between Obie-One and Berns a few weeks ago was a hard and fast warning from a Bilderberg attendee to a wannabe? I suspect that might have been part of it.

This year, the Bilderbergers have got their panties in an historic twist over Trump's insurgency over Bush III. They kicked Bush III to the curb when he couldn't gain traction, and he dropped out of the race. Now they're backing Marco Rubio - the milquetoast little boy with whom they met in 2012.

So what is the interest of these people, this cabal, in US politics? After all, looking at that list, most are from Europe and Asia, right?

Well - as America goes, so goes the world. A while back, we gave the Bilderbergers a glimmer of an idea when they looked at our Constitutional republic.

We have a collection of states which, according to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, have some autonomy - much like the European states. There's an inter-dependency and an independence side-by-side in both places.

What if they could unify the world countries into a single entity? Heck - it was working in America, what if they tried to unify another region in similar fashion? Could it work there?

The EU was the litmus test. Individual laws and constitutions, currencies, politics, and everything else suddenly went by the wayside. They became a union with a new constitution, new laws and legal processes and a new currency. It was a litmus test - could it be done and could it work on a larger scale?

Signs have been more positive than negative that it could work. Except for Greece. That was a wart they missed. But, they pulled out the stops and funded Greece and it's back up on tottery feet. A strong economic wind and it will collapse again but for now, it's standing.

Now the US Treasury - sitting deep in the pockets of the Bilderbergers - is floating the idea of eliminating the $100 bill. They say it's to limit counterfeiting - which is utter nonsense. Nonsense to the point of stinking to high Heaven since anyone who knows even the first thing about counterfeiting knows that the $20 is both the most highly circulated bill and the one most likely to be counterfeited.

The dark side to that proposal is to phase out physical currency. No more bucks or fivers or ten-spots or Benjamins (the $100) that can be folded inside a wallet. Instead, it would all be credit - digits on a computer.

I suspect that Bitcoin was the first attempt at this, but it never caught on. I don't know what other people thought of it, but I hated the idea of giving up my control for supposed convenience. I also wondered about hacking and suspected that it would be far too easy for those who held my money to abscond with it - so I never even looked into it.

Now they're pushing the idea of getting rid of physical money - the cash transactions many of us participate in every day.

Debit cards are one step. Credit cards are another. If they can wrest the physical money from our hands, guess what? They suddenly have absolute control over us.

First, if we want to buy anything, we have to have a piece of plastic to access the money that's in the banks controlled by the Bilderberg group (take a look at the list - all of the world's major banks are represented). What if they don't like us? What if they don't like the way we think or write or talk or vote? What if they don't like us enough that they decline to provide us with that piece of plastic? What would you do if you had money in the bank but no way to get to it?

Second, if they have control of all the money, they can decide what limits to impose on our access to it.

US banks already impose limits on how much you can withdraw at any single time without them filing a report to the Treasury Department. Allegedly, it's to prevent money laundering and drug trafficking, but what if you have a big cash transaction to make - maybe you want to buy a car with cash, or you have something that costs a lot but comes with a deep discount for cash payment. Do you really want the private details of your withdrawal sent to the government? Well, too bad, so sad, that's how it is.

Third, if they have all of the money in digits on a computer someplace, how hard would it be for them to impose negative interest rates? To charge us a percentage rate - that can be changed anytime at their whim - for keeping our money in their bank? It's already being talked about. It's already a law on the books - quietly passed at the G20 meeting a couple of years back when Cypress implemented bail-ins - the confiscation of depositor's money to stabilize the Cyprian economy.

Fourth, how about those bail-ins? Let's say you have worked and saved and penny-pinched your entire life. You're looking forward to retirement and think you have enough put away to do so in reasonable comfort. Suddenly you learn through a notification or sudden shock of showing up to make a withdrawal that the balance you thought you had no longer exists. The bank 'needed' it more than they deemed you do. They bailed it in to pay off debt or cover losses or something else.

Who cares that it was your money? Who cares that you scrimped and saved and lived on pork and beans for forty-plus years so you could retire with peace of mind, travel and do what you want to do. Who cares? The bank doesn't. It's not going to say, 'whoops, sorry. We'll put that back right now... there you go!' That money will be gone. Gone for good just as it was in Cypress when they implemented bail-ins.

So that's the dark side of the Bilderberg group - and Romney with his nasty little-man speech the other day, and the Washington Establishment in the forms of the National Review and the Weekly Standard want to perpetuate the Bilderberger's power. After all, one of the items on the agenda for their 2015 meeting was, surprise surprise, US Elections.

And, here's a tie-in for you: The National Review came out with their despicable hit-pieces against Donald Trump's candidacy. Well, guess what. The founder of the National Review, William F. Buckley, Jr. was a member of the Bilderberg group as reported in the Hamilton Spectator (Ontario, Canada) in June, 1996. Here we are, twenty years later, and the Bilderbergers are back with Romney, Rich Lowry & Co. and other Elitists all coming out against Donald Trump.

It all ties and it's all scary because they're out in the open now, and while they're backing candidates and political rags (National Review, et al.) protesting through front men and women that it's for 'our' good, I think most of us know that 'our' good comes a far distant last place to their good. Bear that in mind when you hit the polls this year - Bernie or Donald who are truly independent. Not Hilliary or Rubio who are in the pockets of these Elitist Elites.

Think about it, do some reading, and have a wonderful day.

Best~
Philippa

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

A 'New Day in America'?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wonder if all of these Spanish speaking people are:

a) here legally;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best~

Philippa

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

Now, It's Getting Interesting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best~
Philippa

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

Yak Doo & Brussels Sprouts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See above to my opinion of that idea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have a lovely day!

Best~
Philippa

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