Last night, on my way home from work here in California, I tried - and I mean tried hard - to listen to your radio show for more than a couple of minutes, but you made my stomach churn in disgust.
You're a smart guy - I've read two of your books ('Men in Black' and 'Liberty & Tyranny') and found your writing engaging and smart without being condescending.
What I do not get is that you, as a self-declared Conservative and Constitutionalist, are backing a flagrant liar who has zero true love for the Constitution. Lip service doesn't count and actions speak louder than words in this world.
Ted Cruz lied when he said he would go to Washington and work to repeal Obamacare - all the alleged Republicans we voted into office in 2012 said the same thing and where are we now? Obamacare is still in place. The Republicans even had the majority in the House and the Senate for the last two years - so what's the problem? Why is Obamacare still in full force and effect?
I don't get how anyone can call healthcare a "right" within the Constitutional context. Where in the Founding documents was Congress given the power to force American citizens to buy a service or commodity they don't want? Yet he and the others elected in 2012 did nothing to even take a snippet out of that law that was shoved down our collective throats by Congress and SCOTUS.
Ted Cruz lies when he says he wants a sovereign United States with secure borders. He didn't pick up that banner until he saw that it was winning support among millions of American voters. Then he started giving it half-hearted lip service and I do not believe for one nanosecond that he means it.
Ted Cruz is married to a woman who worked for more than five years for the Council on Foreign Relations - the group that wants, as stated on their own website - "globalization".
Now please do not try to play ignorant on this one. Globalization means one-world order - a Tolkien-esque world (One Ring to Rule Them All). The UN wants the same thing - as stated in flowery terms in their 2030 Agenda.
Couples do not share bathrooms, beds, pillows and raising children without exchanging ideas and interests. We know where Heidi Cruz stands on this one-world order idea - she is straight on-board with it. Her name is all over a report for the CFR that calls for a unification of North America into a single entity - similar to the EU. And look at how well that's working out.
So are you telling me, Mr. Levin, that you agree with the globalist agenda? That you want our Constitution to take a back seat (all the way in the back) to some doctrine handed down by the UN and its globalist masters? Is that what you really want?
Because sure as I'm sitting here writing this, that is where you and others like you who support and promote Ted Cruz will drive us if Cruz is elected President.
Aside from that, he is a one-term Senator. What happened with the last one-term Senator who was elected President? Do we really want a replay of the past eight years?
Or is it because you can rest assured in his malleability in the hands of the money makers and power brokers that own his soul? After all, no candidate who has received as many tens of millions of dollars in contributions from Super PACs can walk away without obligation - we all know that.
Whatever it is, all respect I had for you before last night and hearing your constant refrain of "Wonderful Ted" is gone. I cannot fathom how anyone intelligent can get behind someone as bought and paid for as he is, who can swallow his lies whole and still praise him to the skies.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Showing posts with label Ted Cruz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ted Cruz. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 27, 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, March 31, 2016
Ted & Heidi Cruz, the CFR & Why It Matters
During the dust-up between Ted Cruz and his PAC's ugly use of Melania Trump's picture to damage Donald's campaign in Utah, something popped up on my radar and I finally got around to following the trail.
Trump threatened to 'spill the beans' on Heidi Cruz. The media latched onto that threat and ran with it, putting blame on Trump for going after Cruz's wife (although a strong argument can be made that Cruz got their first with tacit approval of that billboard) - but what is it? Trump hasn't said. He nudged it but then let the sleeping dog lie.
That, however, led some people to dig around and post pieces on their blogs about what might be behind it. Katrina Pierson, Trump's spokeswoman laid it out directly during an interview on MSNBC.
There is a police report about Heidi Cruz from 2005 - but that doesn't worry me. She was having emotional problems based on what can be extrapolated from the heavily redacted report (which you can find if you Google it).
In sum, a policeman found her sitting on the grass verge about ten feet away from a busy expressway with her head in her hands. He approached her and took her into custody 'for her own safety'. So, ten years ago, she was emotionally unstable. That does not mean she is now, but the potential is there, in her DNA.
What does worry me is her affiliation with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a liberal 'think tank' that began in 1921 to deal with international relations, economics, politics, trade, societal dynamics and the rest of it.
Over the years, from just talking about how to make the world a better and safer place for individual countries, its scope has changed. According to the CFR website, one of their goals is 'globalization'. Globalization is, pure and simple, global unification - international integration. Borders don't exist. Countries don't exist. Individual governments don't exist. Sovereignty is gone - once and for all.
It's grown over time, too. It currently has roughly 4,900 members. Most of these members are at the upper level of world politics and the media. It makes interesting reading. From their roster, a few names leapt out a me:
Madeleine Albright (Billy-Jeff's Sec State), John Bolton (Bush II's UN Ambassador), Dick Cheney, Katie Couric, Barbara Walters, Susan Rice (of Hilliary Clinton's State Department), Charles Krauthammer and Monica Crowley (Fox News Contributors) are just a few. There are also Hollywood types - Warren Beatty - and SCOTUS Justices - Stephen Breyer and someone named John Roberts and another named Ruth Ginsberg... Hmm. Could it be that our Supreme Court which has power over all of us is part of this, too?
Now the idea of a One World Government might sound utopian to you, but it doesn't to me. Just look at the UN members. Who will govern this beautiful new world? Will they rotate through the roster? How would you like Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan or Saudia Arabia ruling the world? Are you up for what their world vision looks like? I'm not.
So here we have the wife of a presidential candidate who didn't just work there, she helped write a report called 'Building a North American Community'. That report recommends getting rid of the borders between Mexico, the US and Canada for citizens - like the EU. Meaning that once you're in one of those countries, you can move freely from one to the other without having to prove where you live.
Heidi Cruz supported that recommendation.
Look how well open borders are working in the EU right now with ISIS / Daesh / ISIL terrorists flowing back and forth like a tide. Paris suffered a terrorist attack just four months ago. Last week it was Brussels and the EU is still hunting down some of the perpetrators and their associates. There are still more threats floating - against the UK and others.
The CFR promoted the original formation of the EU. They pushed the US government into NAFTA which is a trade agreement that has not benefited the US but has benefited Canada and Mexico.
They are not looking out for the citizens of the world. They are looking out for the uber-wealthy, the powerful who view us as cogs who can go hang because we don't count and we don't matter. If you don't believe me, Google 'CFR membership' and take a look at their roster - it's eye-opening who's on there.
So why is this a concern? That's in her past, right? Well, yes, it is in her past but I do think it shows where her ideas lie - a one-world order scenario in which the United States no longer exists as an independent sovereign country.
First Ladies are influential people. Look at Mamie Eisenhower, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Hilliary Clinton - who became Senator, Secretary of State and is now running for president.
The history of Heidi Cruz not just being associated with a group like the Council on Foreign Relations but being involved in writing such a report, and the sway any politically active and adept wife holds over her husband, raises a big red warning flag for me. Particularly if she becomes First Lady to the President of the United States.
Could it be that the pivot toward Ted Cruz by the Elites is that he's already making conciliatory noises about falling more in line with the CFR ideas?
When push comes to shove if that supposition is correct, who's going to win?
Will it be the electorate that is clamoring for tightened borders and smaller government, or will it be the woman he sleeps with every night? Will We The People get the wall we want, or will his wife who shares his bathroom convince him it's a bad idea?
I don't know but it is a concern.
At this point, even if he were to come out and declare his independence from the CFR I wouldn't believe him. He's already proved he's a serial liar - voter violations, telling the voters in Iowa that Ben Carson had dropped out of the race, lying about all sorts of other things that have been brought up in just the past two months. Once a liar, always a liar and you cannot trust the words of someone who has been shown to be dishonest, as he has.
Do some reading - there's plenty of it out there - and you can start right here:
http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102
Go to the Recommendations that start on page 7 and read from there.
And, at the bottom of the page this link will take you to, there is a list of contributors. Look at who's Number Three:
Now isn't that interesting...
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Trump threatened to 'spill the beans' on Heidi Cruz. The media latched onto that threat and ran with it, putting blame on Trump for going after Cruz's wife (although a strong argument can be made that Cruz got their first with tacit approval of that billboard) - but what is it? Trump hasn't said. He nudged it but then let the sleeping dog lie.
That, however, led some people to dig around and post pieces on their blogs about what might be behind it. Katrina Pierson, Trump's spokeswoman laid it out directly during an interview on MSNBC.
There is a police report about Heidi Cruz from 2005 - but that doesn't worry me. She was having emotional problems based on what can be extrapolated from the heavily redacted report (which you can find if you Google it).
In sum, a policeman found her sitting on the grass verge about ten feet away from a busy expressway with her head in her hands. He approached her and took her into custody 'for her own safety'. So, ten years ago, she was emotionally unstable. That does not mean she is now, but the potential is there, in her DNA.
What does worry me is her affiliation with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a liberal 'think tank' that began in 1921 to deal with international relations, economics, politics, trade, societal dynamics and the rest of it.
Over the years, from just talking about how to make the world a better and safer place for individual countries, its scope has changed. According to the CFR website, one of their goals is 'globalization'. Globalization is, pure and simple, global unification - international integration. Borders don't exist. Countries don't exist. Individual governments don't exist. Sovereignty is gone - once and for all.
It's grown over time, too. It currently has roughly 4,900 members. Most of these members are at the upper level of world politics and the media. It makes interesting reading. From their roster, a few names leapt out a me:
Madeleine Albright (Billy-Jeff's Sec State), John Bolton (Bush II's UN Ambassador), Dick Cheney, Katie Couric, Barbara Walters, Susan Rice (of Hilliary Clinton's State Department), Charles Krauthammer and Monica Crowley (Fox News Contributors) are just a few. There are also Hollywood types - Warren Beatty - and SCOTUS Justices - Stephen Breyer and someone named John Roberts and another named Ruth Ginsberg... Hmm. Could it be that our Supreme Court which has power over all of us is part of this, too?
Now the idea of a One World Government might sound utopian to you, but it doesn't to me. Just look at the UN members. Who will govern this beautiful new world? Will they rotate through the roster? How would you like Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan or Saudia Arabia ruling the world? Are you up for what their world vision looks like? I'm not.
So here we have the wife of a presidential candidate who didn't just work there, she helped write a report called 'Building a North American Community'. That report recommends getting rid of the borders between Mexico, the US and Canada for citizens - like the EU. Meaning that once you're in one of those countries, you can move freely from one to the other without having to prove where you live.
Heidi Cruz supported that recommendation.
Look how well open borders are working in the EU right now with ISIS / Daesh / ISIL terrorists flowing back and forth like a tide. Paris suffered a terrorist attack just four months ago. Last week it was Brussels and the EU is still hunting down some of the perpetrators and their associates. There are still more threats floating - against the UK and others.
The CFR promoted the original formation of the EU. They pushed the US government into NAFTA which is a trade agreement that has not benefited the US but has benefited Canada and Mexico.
They are not looking out for the citizens of the world. They are looking out for the uber-wealthy, the powerful who view us as cogs who can go hang because we don't count and we don't matter. If you don't believe me, Google 'CFR membership' and take a look at their roster - it's eye-opening who's on there.
So why is this a concern? That's in her past, right? Well, yes, it is in her past but I do think it shows where her ideas lie - a one-world order scenario in which the United States no longer exists as an independent sovereign country.
First Ladies are influential people. Look at Mamie Eisenhower, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Hilliary Clinton - who became Senator, Secretary of State and is now running for president.
The history of Heidi Cruz not just being associated with a group like the Council on Foreign Relations but being involved in writing such a report, and the sway any politically active and adept wife holds over her husband, raises a big red warning flag for me. Particularly if she becomes First Lady to the President of the United States.
Could it be that the pivot toward Ted Cruz by the Elites is that he's already making conciliatory noises about falling more in line with the CFR ideas?
When push comes to shove if that supposition is correct, who's going to win?
Will it be the electorate that is clamoring for tightened borders and smaller government, or will it be the woman he sleeps with every night? Will We The People get the wall we want, or will his wife who shares his bathroom convince him it's a bad idea?
I don't know but it is a concern.
At this point, even if he were to come out and declare his independence from the CFR I wouldn't believe him. He's already proved he's a serial liar - voter violations, telling the voters in Iowa that Ben Carson had dropped out of the race, lying about all sorts of other things that have been brought up in just the past two months. Once a liar, always a liar and you cannot trust the words of someone who has been shown to be dishonest, as he has.
Do some reading - there's plenty of it out there - and you can start right here:
http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102
Go to the Recommendations that start on page 7 and read from there.
And, at the bottom of the page this link will take you to, there is a list of contributors. Look at who's Number Three:
Now isn't that interesting...
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
Loyalty and Interchangeable Parts
When the chips are down and someone has my back, there is no better feeling in the world. It is HUGE to know that you don't have to look for the axe while dodging the bullet and when someone I work for treats me as he expects to be treated, that is a blessing that cannot be described. It shows character of the best sort.
When Corey Lewandowski was charged with simple battery stemming from that March 8th mess with the Breitbart female, Trump didn't throw him in front of the train. No. He did and he has stuck by him - even though it might end up costing him in the press and at the ballot box in some small way. No - he showed the kind of loyalty that's impossible to find in most boss-employee relationships these days.
He also didn't call out the Secret Service - which should have been called out. After all, if the Secret Service had been doing their job, she would never have gotten through that line. If the Secret Service had been doing what they were supposed to be doing, one of them would have pulled her away.
She should never have been able to get as close to Trump as she did. She was holding a pen in her hand - what if that hadn't been a pen? What if it had been a knife or something else? Where was the Secret Service at that moment? They weren't there so Corey Lewandowski did what the Secret Service should have done.
I have seen the tape of that so called 'battery' and there's nothing there. Yes, Corey Lewandowski reached out and pulled that Breitbart female back (sorry, I don't care enough about her to find or pay attention to her name, she isn't worth it). However, what that tape clearly shows is that she put her hand on Donald Trump before anyone laid a finger on her.
In that case, because he didn't want to be touched - you can see it in the video when he pulls away from her - he could have filed battery charges against her. But he's rational. He's sane. He is not some vapid little girl who is willing to play the VICTIM card because she was touched in a scrum of other people and pulled away from that man's boss.
Let's say that kind of thing happened during Mardi Gras in New Orleans, or at a sporting event or any other crowded place. Do you suppose she would be screaming 'foul' and levying charges? Hell no!
No. I'm afraid her biggest issues are that she's an insecure little twit with the brains of roadkill and she hates Donald Trump.
Out of all of this, the take-away is top-down loyalty. The hallmark of a great character. I value loyalty and I do not like people who are not loyal. They can't be trusted.
On the other side, in interviews yesterday both John Kasich and Ted Cruz said they would fire Lewandowski if he worked for them. Okay, Kasich first said he would suspend him, but then he did say he would fire him. In other words, they will sacrifice anyone and anything if they think it might impact the public's impression of them. Now there's a hallmark of character.
As for the rest of it that's swirling around, it seems the Washington Insiders and their minions in the guise of Fox News (aka Pravda-USA) and CNN really do want just another interchangeable part in the Washington machine sitting in the White House.
After all - who is it that the Elites and their slavering minions are pushing (foisting) on us? Why it's Ted Cruz! He of the scandal-ridden campaign.
Heck - it's only March - this election cycle only got started at the end of January with the Iowa caucuses - and he's racked up claims of three different scandals: Fraud, Corruption and Sex. By God he's hitting on all cylinders!
On the fraud front, this is true and legitimate: Paul Pate, the Iowa Secretary of State was something less than happy with the Cruz campaign for that little matter of the "voter violation" forms. Those were those official looking mailers sent out by the Cruz campaign prior to the caucuses. Pate went so far as to call it 'a false representation of an official act' which is, according to Iowa law, a criminal act.
By all rights, since that was a criminal act under Iowa law, the Cruz campaign should have received a bit more than a finger-wag and a 'tut-tut'. They didn't, though, because I'm sure the RNC / GOP weighed in and said 'shut up' or words to that effect.
Potential voters weren't all that happy, either. The following is excerpted from a January 31, 2016 article in the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ted-cruzs-iowa-mailers-are-more-fraudulent-than-everyone-thinks
Isn't that nice. Ted Cruz is 'bullying' cripples and 'shaming' the elderly into going to the polls.
The corruption is something I haven't been able to verify, but it's being claimed across the blog-o-sphere. According to more than one internet 'source', the Cruz campaign gave a cool half-a-million dollars to Carly Fiorina's campaign. Let's hit that again: Per rumor one presidential campaign gave $500,000 to a competing campaign. These other bloggers are claiming that it was 'hush' money relating to Accusation Number 3.
Now I don't like smearing people - it's not comfortable for me, so I did try to track down the source of this information.
I spent the better part of an hour on the FEC website where I did find one contribution of a bit more than $499,300 given to the Carly for America super PAC in February, but I haven't been able to nail it to the Cruz PAC. I'll keep trying, or you can if you'd like. It would make an interesting coda to this disgusting campaign.
Then we have the sex scandal. This is a 'burn my eyeballs out' kind of thing. I really don't want to even imagine that. Still, if this man is proclaiming his high and mighty morality on the one hand and doin' the deed with women not his wife on the other, that's a problem. A big one because if you are going to talk the talk then you had damned well better be walkin' the walk.
This is being looked into by any number of moles, so I won't except to say it's out there. If it does have legs, I'm sure the National Enquirer will produce the next installment in their next issue.
What is annoying is that he's lying again.
He's doubled-down on the accusation that Trump floated it when, in fact, it's well documented that it was the Rubio campaign that came up with this. It's obvious why he's doing this, but it's more than a tad disingenuous to keep pounding it when even the cable news services have been told it was Rubio.
Whatever. In the end, once the millipede stops walking and the shoes stop dropping we'll figure it out. Those people who dislike Ted Cruz aren't going to be swayed by the 'poor me' dishrag with which he's wiping his tears. I'm just disgusted by the man's conscious duplicity.
It is interesting that the National Enquirer has put itself on the line in a big way. I don't know what the statute of limitations is for defamation but if Cruz were to lose the election he could easily sue - claiming damages including his failed bid for the White House.
Roger Stone has also thrown the gauntlet, declaring on television, "If it's not true, sue me!"
Real or not, Ted Cruz is at least keeping pace with the Hilliary scandal wagon - one a month. Can he keep it up? With April just around the corner, we'll find out.
What is more interesting than the sleaze factor are two points.
First, Cruz is being swamped with scandal allegations but none of them are sticking and no one in the news is paying attention. Why aren't these allegations being spoken of? You know that if it was Trump they would be talking about nothing else in the most salacious terms possible.
Second, if these allegations are false, why isn't he actively denying them?
I dunno. Maybe because he'll look too Bill Clinton-ish, 'I did not have sex with that woman... Ms. Candy Wrapper.'
In the meantime, the Cruz campaign is still doing what it does. They're playing both sides against the middle, trying not to offend anyone. Just last night, for instance, when asked on CNN if he would back the GOP nominee regardless of who it is, he fudged. He spent a good thirty seconds hemming and hawing and then took a strong dodge to the side.
Trump, on the other hand, was clear. No, he will not honor that pledge because he made it in good faith and that good faith has been violated again and again by the other parties.
With all that's happened, with all that is happening it's hardly surprising. After all, Trump isn't behind closed doors with the Elites and GOP trying to figure out how to steal this election without pissing off and losing the front-runner's constituency. That pledge is worthless.
Now, if the GOP and the money-men were honest dealers, if they weren't conspiring against the leader of the pack, it would be dishonorable for that leader to blow off a promise. But when that promise was made by him in good faith and the other parties leave the deal... well, all bets are off.
As for why the Elites are backing a flawed, scandal-ridden candidate, it's easy.
Those scandals, and any others they uncover, put Cruz in a really bad place. They can bribe him - threaten him with disclosure and humiliation, and thereby keep him in line.
If they could find anything on Trump, anything at all, don't you think they would? Don't you think, given the hatred for Trump, that they would blow it up and make hay with it all day long? Instead, the best they're able to do is to accuse Trump of being loyal to his campaign manager.
Now that is a crazy messed up world.
Anyway. Just another day in paradise, right?
Hope it's lovely!
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
When Corey Lewandowski was charged with simple battery stemming from that March 8th mess with the Breitbart female, Trump didn't throw him in front of the train. No. He did and he has stuck by him - even though it might end up costing him in the press and at the ballot box in some small way. No - he showed the kind of loyalty that's impossible to find in most boss-employee relationships these days.
He also didn't call out the Secret Service - which should have been called out. After all, if the Secret Service had been doing their job, she would never have gotten through that line. If the Secret Service had been doing what they were supposed to be doing, one of them would have pulled her away.
She should never have been able to get as close to Trump as she did. She was holding a pen in her hand - what if that hadn't been a pen? What if it had been a knife or something else? Where was the Secret Service at that moment? They weren't there so Corey Lewandowski did what the Secret Service should have done.
I have seen the tape of that so called 'battery' and there's nothing there. Yes, Corey Lewandowski reached out and pulled that Breitbart female back (sorry, I don't care enough about her to find or pay attention to her name, she isn't worth it). However, what that tape clearly shows is that she put her hand on Donald Trump before anyone laid a finger on her.
In that case, because he didn't want to be touched - you can see it in the video when he pulls away from her - he could have filed battery charges against her. But he's rational. He's sane. He is not some vapid little girl who is willing to play the VICTIM card because she was touched in a scrum of other people and pulled away from that man's boss.
Let's say that kind of thing happened during Mardi Gras in New Orleans, or at a sporting event or any other crowded place. Do you suppose she would be screaming 'foul' and levying charges? Hell no!
No. I'm afraid her biggest issues are that she's an insecure little twit with the brains of roadkill and she hates Donald Trump.
Out of all of this, the take-away is top-down loyalty. The hallmark of a great character. I value loyalty and I do not like people who are not loyal. They can't be trusted.
On the other side, in interviews yesterday both John Kasich and Ted Cruz said they would fire Lewandowski if he worked for them. Okay, Kasich first said he would suspend him, but then he did say he would fire him. In other words, they will sacrifice anyone and anything if they think it might impact the public's impression of them. Now there's a hallmark of character.
As for the rest of it that's swirling around, it seems the Washington Insiders and their minions in the guise of Fox News (aka Pravda-USA) and CNN really do want just another interchangeable part in the Washington machine sitting in the White House.
After all - who is it that the Elites and their slavering minions are pushing (foisting) on us? Why it's Ted Cruz! He of the scandal-ridden campaign.
Heck - it's only March - this election cycle only got started at the end of January with the Iowa caucuses - and he's racked up claims of three different scandals: Fraud, Corruption and Sex. By God he's hitting on all cylinders!
On the fraud front, this is true and legitimate: Paul Pate, the Iowa Secretary of State was something less than happy with the Cruz campaign for that little matter of the "voter violation" forms. Those were those official looking mailers sent out by the Cruz campaign prior to the caucuses. Pate went so far as to call it 'a false representation of an official act' which is, according to Iowa law, a criminal act.
By all rights, since that was a criminal act under Iowa law, the Cruz campaign should have received a bit more than a finger-wag and a 'tut-tut'. They didn't, though, because I'm sure the RNC / GOP weighed in and said 'shut up' or words to that effect.
Potential voters weren't all that happy, either. The following is excerpted from a January 31, 2016 article in the New Yorker:
The Cruz mailers have been widely
condemned by Iowans. “I just wonder how many of these went out to people
who might seriously believe they committed a violation or were
embarrassed that their neighbors might know about their alleged voting
record,” Braddock Massey, a Rubio supporter who lives in West Des Moines
and received one of the mailers, said.
Donna
Holstein, who was listed on one of them, was upset to learn that she
had been given a failing grade and that her neighbors might be told
whether she participates in the caucus. She told me that she has voted
consistently but that she can’t this time because of a disability.
“I’m
crippled, so I can’t go to the caucus,” Holstein said. She was not
happy about being shamed in front of her neighbors. “That’s what you
call a bully,” she said about Cruz’s tactics. “I wish he would quit.”
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ted-cruzs-iowa-mailers-are-more-fraudulent-than-everyone-thinks
Isn't that nice. Ted Cruz is 'bullying' cripples and 'shaming' the elderly into going to the polls.
The corruption is something I haven't been able to verify, but it's being claimed across the blog-o-sphere. According to more than one internet 'source', the Cruz campaign gave a cool half-a-million dollars to Carly Fiorina's campaign. Let's hit that again: Per rumor one presidential campaign gave $500,000 to a competing campaign. These other bloggers are claiming that it was 'hush' money relating to Accusation Number 3.
Now I don't like smearing people - it's not comfortable for me, so I did try to track down the source of this information.
I spent the better part of an hour on the FEC website where I did find one contribution of a bit more than $499,300 given to the Carly for America super PAC in February, but I haven't been able to nail it to the Cruz PAC. I'll keep trying, or you can if you'd like. It would make an interesting coda to this disgusting campaign.
Then we have the sex scandal. This is a 'burn my eyeballs out' kind of thing. I really don't want to even imagine that. Still, if this man is proclaiming his high and mighty morality on the one hand and doin' the deed with women not his wife on the other, that's a problem. A big one because if you are going to talk the talk then you had damned well better be walkin' the walk.
This is being looked into by any number of moles, so I won't except to say it's out there. If it does have legs, I'm sure the National Enquirer will produce the next installment in their next issue.
What is annoying is that he's lying again.
He's doubled-down on the accusation that Trump floated it when, in fact, it's well documented that it was the Rubio campaign that came up with this. It's obvious why he's doing this, but it's more than a tad disingenuous to keep pounding it when even the cable news services have been told it was Rubio.
Whatever. In the end, once the millipede stops walking and the shoes stop dropping we'll figure it out. Those people who dislike Ted Cruz aren't going to be swayed by the 'poor me' dishrag with which he's wiping his tears. I'm just disgusted by the man's conscious duplicity.
It is interesting that the National Enquirer has put itself on the line in a big way. I don't know what the statute of limitations is for defamation but if Cruz were to lose the election he could easily sue - claiming damages including his failed bid for the White House.
Roger Stone has also thrown the gauntlet, declaring on television, "If it's not true, sue me!"
Real or not, Ted Cruz is at least keeping pace with the Hilliary scandal wagon - one a month. Can he keep it up? With April just around the corner, we'll find out.
What is more interesting than the sleaze factor are two points.
First, Cruz is being swamped with scandal allegations but none of them are sticking and no one in the news is paying attention. Why aren't these allegations being spoken of? You know that if it was Trump they would be talking about nothing else in the most salacious terms possible.
Second, if these allegations are false, why isn't he actively denying them?
I dunno. Maybe because he'll look too Bill Clinton-ish, 'I did not have sex with that woman... Ms. Candy Wrapper.'
In the meantime, the Cruz campaign is still doing what it does. They're playing both sides against the middle, trying not to offend anyone. Just last night, for instance, when asked on CNN if he would back the GOP nominee regardless of who it is, he fudged. He spent a good thirty seconds hemming and hawing and then took a strong dodge to the side.
Trump, on the other hand, was clear. No, he will not honor that pledge because he made it in good faith and that good faith has been violated again and again by the other parties.
With all that's happened, with all that is happening it's hardly surprising. After all, Trump isn't behind closed doors with the Elites and GOP trying to figure out how to steal this election without pissing off and losing the front-runner's constituency. That pledge is worthless.
Now, if the GOP and the money-men were honest dealers, if they weren't conspiring against the leader of the pack, it would be dishonorable for that leader to blow off a promise. But when that promise was made by him in good faith and the other parties leave the deal... well, all bets are off.
As for why the Elites are backing a flawed, scandal-ridden candidate, it's easy.
Those scandals, and any others they uncover, put Cruz in a really bad place. They can bribe him - threaten him with disclosure and humiliation, and thereby keep him in line.
If they could find anything on Trump, anything at all, don't you think they would? Don't you think, given the hatred for Trump, that they would blow it up and make hay with it all day long? Instead, the best they're able to do is to accuse Trump of being loyal to his campaign manager.
Now that is a crazy messed up world.
Anyway. Just another day in paradise, right?
Hope it's lovely!
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Monday, March 28, 2016
I Don't Like Liars & Ted Cruz Qualifies
Good grief! What a weekend... Accusations about things I would rather not imagine - and some of it looks more than a bit suspicious, like it might actually stick.
Back on April 1st last year, one of the women who has been identified on the internet as one of Cruz's Babes appeared in a Tweeted selfie while showing off a Winston Churchill tattoo placed on the back of her left shoulder. That is not an easy place to self-apply a tattoo and she just happens to be wearing what looks like it might be a man's suit jacket (it's hard to tell - but...)
It's all over the place on the 'net that at the same time on the same day she took that pic, Ted Cruz was appearing on Fox's morning show. There he showed off a Winston Churchill tattoo on his right forearm while batting away a question about where his jacket might be.
This is a seven minute segment, but if you fast forward to about 6:30 you'll get to the part that's most interesting and potentially relevant - the display of the tattoo and question / deflection about the whereabouts of the jacket.
When asked where he got the tat, he said he was on the West Coast - so it would be interesting if someone were to follow that lead. Was Ms. Carpenter also on the West Coast at the time?
These tit bits were put together by several sites across several blogs, but the pictures and video are available off the internet if you just do a search.
There are other little things, too. Like the $500,000 contribution made from the Cruz campaign to Carly Fiorina's PAC - and the fact that another of the Cruz Babes happened to work for Fiorina. The Election Commission is looking into that peculiarity but I wonder if it's hush money for something.
It doesn't matter whether it is or not - that transaction stinks to high Heaven. After all, why would one presidential campaign transfer a cool half-mil to another, competing campaign? I can't think of a logical answer. Wouldn't the Cruz campaign be able to make better hay with that money than hand it off to Carly's account?
Further to this whole thing, several places including Lawnewz.com, have posted articles that raise a really interesting point.
While Ted Cruz has attacked the National Enquirer article that started the rumpus on Friday, he has not denied doing anything wrong.
He's called the article 'garbage' and accused Trump of planting it (which Trump didn't as more than one person has traced it back to the Rubio campaign), but he hasn't declared in no uncertain terms 'I did not boff that woman, or that one, or that one, or...'
It's an interesting point because when we're accused of doing something we didn't - particularly if it's unsavory or embarrassing - don't you or I immediately stand up and say, 'it wasn't me! I didn't do that!'? That reaction is missing between here and last Friday from Mr. Cruz.
There's also the question about the lawsuit. If the article put out by the National Enquirer has no basis in fact, it's defamatory and this is a case where great harm can be easily shown. Just the embarrassment of such allegations against such a pillar of moral society would be enough. Or the emotional harm caused to his wife and children. Those criteria have been met. So why is Cruz not threatening a suit against a defamatory publication? Could it be that he knows there is something there - perhaps not five but maybe four or three?
If he were to take this to court, and if there is evidence that he was doing these women on the side, he'd look like an idiot. Could it be that he doesn't want to look like more of an immoral snake-in-the-grass than he does already?
I will say I don't feel sorry for Heidi Cruz. I've done some digging into her background and she is just as unsavory as her husband. Besides, she's probably known he was getting some on the side for a while. After all, for more than a year he was working on his political career in Texas while she was working with the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.
No - I feel sorry for the kids. No children should ever have to be faced with stuff like this and hearing these horrible things about a man you look up to and respect? It's a terrible thing for them. Just on that score Ted Cruz should hang his head in shame.
Another piece of moral character that is missing from Mr. Cruz's make-up is the apology to Mrs. Trump and her husband about his PAC going after Mrs. Trump with those billboards.
Art is in the eye of the beholder and those billboards could qualify as art - she made a gorgeous model. Since that picture was shot for a British gentleman's magazine - not quite Playboy - I don't think she's terribly embarrassed by it. Except for how that picture has damaged her husband's campaign in Utah - but it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway. Not with Romney out there stumping for Cruz.
Hmm. I wonder what Romney will think, say or do if these allegations about his new political bestest bud are proven true? Wave it off and give it a pass? Wonder if the moral compass needle in Salt Lake is broken, too.
Art and political bed mates aside, when a political candidate benefits from the actions of a PAC, and that PAC is responsible for doing something reprehensible - like targeting the opposing candidate's wife or children - doesn't that candidate bear a responsibility or obligation to stand up and denounce the PAC? Morally and ethically I think they do. After all, if they're benefiting in some way, they do bear some responsibility for what provides that benefit whether or not they are directly involved in the decision to run with it.
No matter. It's water under the bridge - except for those bobbing beauties still to be identified and named who are caught in the current.
As for the other lying - not related to the babes - it's documented.
PolitiFact has a list readily available.
The little fact that his wife, Heidi, worked for at least five years at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is another.
That association puts a hard and fast exclamation point on the #LyinTed tag. After all, the CFR has quite questionable goals - small, non-intrusive government emphatically not being one of them. You can read all about them and draw your own conclusions, but if Ted's goals are small government and strict adherence to the Constitution, wouldn't he kind of object to his wife being associated with an organization diametrically opposed to Constitutional sovereignty?
In any event, I'm going to sit back and wait for the next shoe to drop from this distasteful (but interesting) millipede. It shouldn't be long...
Have a wonderful day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Back on April 1st last year, one of the women who has been identified on the internet as one of Cruz's Babes appeared in a Tweeted selfie while showing off a Winston Churchill tattoo placed on the back of her left shoulder. That is not an easy place to self-apply a tattoo and she just happens to be wearing what looks like it might be a man's suit jacket (it's hard to tell - but...)
It's all over the place on the 'net that at the same time on the same day she took that pic, Ted Cruz was appearing on Fox's morning show. There he showed off a Winston Churchill tattoo on his right forearm while batting away a question about where his jacket might be.
This is a seven minute segment, but if you fast forward to about 6:30 you'll get to the part that's most interesting and potentially relevant - the display of the tattoo and question / deflection about the whereabouts of the jacket.
When asked where he got the tat, he said he was on the West Coast - so it would be interesting if someone were to follow that lead. Was Ms. Carpenter also on the West Coast at the time?
These tit bits were put together by several sites across several blogs, but the pictures and video are available off the internet if you just do a search.
There are other little things, too. Like the $500,000 contribution made from the Cruz campaign to Carly Fiorina's PAC - and the fact that another of the Cruz Babes happened to work for Fiorina. The Election Commission is looking into that peculiarity but I wonder if it's hush money for something.
It doesn't matter whether it is or not - that transaction stinks to high Heaven. After all, why would one presidential campaign transfer a cool half-mil to another, competing campaign? I can't think of a logical answer. Wouldn't the Cruz campaign be able to make better hay with that money than hand it off to Carly's account?
Further to this whole thing, several places including Lawnewz.com, have posted articles that raise a really interesting point.
While Ted Cruz has attacked the National Enquirer article that started the rumpus on Friday, he has not denied doing anything wrong.
He's called the article 'garbage' and accused Trump of planting it (which Trump didn't as more than one person has traced it back to the Rubio campaign), but he hasn't declared in no uncertain terms 'I did not boff that woman, or that one, or that one, or...'
It's an interesting point because when we're accused of doing something we didn't - particularly if it's unsavory or embarrassing - don't you or I immediately stand up and say, 'it wasn't me! I didn't do that!'? That reaction is missing between here and last Friday from Mr. Cruz.
There's also the question about the lawsuit. If the article put out by the National Enquirer has no basis in fact, it's defamatory and this is a case where great harm can be easily shown. Just the embarrassment of such allegations against such a pillar of moral society would be enough. Or the emotional harm caused to his wife and children. Those criteria have been met. So why is Cruz not threatening a suit against a defamatory publication? Could it be that he knows there is something there - perhaps not five but maybe four or three?
If he were to take this to court, and if there is evidence that he was doing these women on the side, he'd look like an idiot. Could it be that he doesn't want to look like more of an immoral snake-in-the-grass than he does already?
I will say I don't feel sorry for Heidi Cruz. I've done some digging into her background and she is just as unsavory as her husband. Besides, she's probably known he was getting some on the side for a while. After all, for more than a year he was working on his political career in Texas while she was working with the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.
No - I feel sorry for the kids. No children should ever have to be faced with stuff like this and hearing these horrible things about a man you look up to and respect? It's a terrible thing for them. Just on that score Ted Cruz should hang his head in shame.
Another piece of moral character that is missing from Mr. Cruz's make-up is the apology to Mrs. Trump and her husband about his PAC going after Mrs. Trump with those billboards.
Art is in the eye of the beholder and those billboards could qualify as art - she made a gorgeous model. Since that picture was shot for a British gentleman's magazine - not quite Playboy - I don't think she's terribly embarrassed by it. Except for how that picture has damaged her husband's campaign in Utah - but it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway. Not with Romney out there stumping for Cruz.
Hmm. I wonder what Romney will think, say or do if these allegations about his new political bestest bud are proven true? Wave it off and give it a pass? Wonder if the moral compass needle in Salt Lake is broken, too.
Art and political bed mates aside, when a political candidate benefits from the actions of a PAC, and that PAC is responsible for doing something reprehensible - like targeting the opposing candidate's wife or children - doesn't that candidate bear a responsibility or obligation to stand up and denounce the PAC? Morally and ethically I think they do. After all, if they're benefiting in some way, they do bear some responsibility for what provides that benefit whether or not they are directly involved in the decision to run with it.
No matter. It's water under the bridge - except for those bobbing beauties still to be identified and named who are caught in the current.
As for the other lying - not related to the babes - it's documented.
PolitiFact has a list readily available.
The little fact that his wife, Heidi, worked for at least five years at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is another.
That association puts a hard and fast exclamation point on the #LyinTed tag. After all, the CFR has quite questionable goals - small, non-intrusive government emphatically not being one of them. You can read all about them and draw your own conclusions, but if Ted's goals are small government and strict adherence to the Constitution, wouldn't he kind of object to his wife being associated with an organization diametrically opposed to Constitutional sovereignty?
In any event, I'm going to sit back and wait for the next shoe to drop from this distasteful (but interesting) millipede. It shouldn't be long...
Have a wonderful day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
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
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
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
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
One down...
Iowa is sleeping better this morning. The Circus has left town and people are waking up to emptier streets and coffee shops, less sound and fury. The only milling herds they'll be dealing with are cows and sheep.
Today, it's New Hampshire being invaded and another round of who will and who won't and why.
Cruz won Iowa last night. According to some, that isn't surprising. According to others (the BBC, for one), it was a 'blow' to Trump. What the 'blowers' don't get is that Iowa is vastly different from the coastal states - New York and New England, the Eastern Seaboard and the Left Coast.
I think Cruz appealed to the locals with his attire (farm modern v. Armani), his demeanor - calm and sincere - and with his pastor father who spoke in a number of churches. With blue jeans, a 'cowboy' shirt and a pair of Tony Lama kicks, Cruz fit in more more easily than Trump. When Cruz visited farms, he probably wasn't mincing through the dirt, afraid of getting his city shoes muddy or dusty.
Even at the Iowa State Fair last summer, the difference is obvious. Ted fits right in, one of the regular guys. Donald appears as a celebrity, body guard, hordes of fans and all. As much as anything else, I think it's this optic that played out over the weeks and paid off for Cruz last night.
Aside from the optical differences, one of the points hammered on for the past several days is the 'ground game' each of the candidates had in play. These are the staffers and volunteers who spend countless hours on the phone, behind the wheel and knocking on doors. The media kept talking about how well organized Cruz was in that respect, and laughed at the secrecy cloaking Trump's.
In all, I think Iowans, on a personal level, felt more comfortable with Cruz and that is why Cruz won.
To say that a 'blow' was dealt to Trump is a stretch. Even Trump was saying (although only he, Melania and his inner circle know what he was saying privately) that he didn't believe he would win. And, when he didn't, he gave in graciously. Surprisingly graciously (I was sitting on the sofa, palms together and praying he would be gracious, delighted when he was), and I think that won him at least some points across the board.
He didn't come out snarky and insulting. He congratulated Cruz and Rubio, wished the others well, and said he was heading to New Hampshire. Along with everyone else.
It was a good evening all around and I think, that in the sense that Trump had a surprise at the end in the tone and tenor of his capitulation speech, he probably actually did better than Cruz in a way. That pleasant speech might well make people sit up and pay a bit closer attention because 'maybe he isn't the jerk we thought, Mildred.' He revealed another facet to his character, and it's a good one. So, we'll see because there's a long way to go
On the Democrat side, that was a squeaker and I can't help but wonder what the real vote was. Unlike the Repbulicans, the Dems count delegates, not votes, and they don't release the 'real' numbers, the raw count, to the public. Which means box stuffing is entirely possible, do-able, and probable in some precincts.
It'll be interesting to see what comes out of there in a few weeks. Even though it won't really matter by then. At some point, Iowa will take the Democrat results, tally them and announce the 'real' winner. By then, though, it's too late. New Hampshire will be in the bag, South Carolina and Nevada will be underway, and no one will be paying attention to Iowa anymore (sorry, Iowa, but it's the fact).
In the meantime, both candidates are going to claim they won, even though they split the vote almost straight down the middle - separating the two of them at the end of the evening was just two-tenths of one percent which is about as tight as it gets.
Now, if Sanders goes to the Iowa Secretary of State and asks that the raw data be released, that'll be interesting. The Iowa Sec State is a Republican. If, looking at the data, there appears to be anything untoward, she might go up the food chain to ask about it. If it's glaring that the box was stuffed in Hilliary's favor (the DNC might not have believed how tight a race Berns would make it), they might just release that data. Give it three weeks or so. If they do, it'll make for interesting reading. If they don't, well... it'll go down in the books as a really close race.
What's going to get interesting now is this whole e-mail mess with Hilliary.
If Berns did better in Iowa than the DNC and Washington might have projected or expected, if he took the party by surprise, they might be getting nervous. Berns's numbers up in New Hampshire are strong. He's known to the folks there, and he's liked by the folks there. It's almost certain that he's going to win New Hampshire, and probably by a lot.
If he blows Hilliary out of the water up there, and if he can get his ground game going in South Carolina, where it's currently lagging, badly, and Nevada, and make it look like he's going to give Hilliary a run for her and the DNC's money, the Dems might decide to cut their losses. There is, after all, that little matter of the e-mails and the server, etc.
One thing that Bernie hasn't done to date is tackle Hilliary head-on over that. If he had challenged her on it leading up to last night, he very well could have had a clear win in Iowa. If he decides not to make that same mistake going forward, if he raises the question in people's minds that she can't be trusted with even middling decisions, he could start to walk away with this
Cue the legal paper chase through the halls of Justice, an indictment, a stepping down and a tossing in of Biden.
Even if Obie-One and the Democrat machine deny the indictment and negotiate the charges down to a misdemeanor, I think it's a sixty-forty proposition or better that Comey and the FBI will be furious with the manipulation. If they're mad enough, if they have a strong enough case to get a conviction and the Democrats wave their hands to make it go away, there might be some embarrassing leaks from Foggy Bottom as we get closer to the election.
No matter, the DNC is getting backed into a corner with Hilliary and the mess she's created, and Berns's surprising strength in this process. They can't wait too long because if they get much past Super Tuesday - March 1st, which is the day on which fifteen states either vote or caucus - they're going to have a real uphill battle to sell Biden as a replacement for Hilliary.
Keep watching - we're just getting started!
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Today, it's New Hampshire being invaded and another round of who will and who won't and why.
Cruz won Iowa last night. According to some, that isn't surprising. According to others (the BBC, for one), it was a 'blow' to Trump. What the 'blowers' don't get is that Iowa is vastly different from the coastal states - New York and New England, the Eastern Seaboard and the Left Coast.
I think Cruz appealed to the locals with his attire (farm modern v. Armani), his demeanor - calm and sincere - and with his pastor father who spoke in a number of churches. With blue jeans, a 'cowboy' shirt and a pair of Tony Lama kicks, Cruz fit in more more easily than Trump. When Cruz visited farms, he probably wasn't mincing through the dirt, afraid of getting his city shoes muddy or dusty.
Even at the Iowa State Fair last summer, the difference is obvious. Ted fits right in, one of the regular guys. Donald appears as a celebrity, body guard, hordes of fans and all. As much as anything else, I think it's this optic that played out over the weeks and paid off for Cruz last night.
 |
| (c) Getty Images |
In all, I think Iowans, on a personal level, felt more comfortable with Cruz and that is why Cruz won.
To say that a 'blow' was dealt to Trump is a stretch. Even Trump was saying (although only he, Melania and his inner circle know what he was saying privately) that he didn't believe he would win. And, when he didn't, he gave in graciously. Surprisingly graciously (I was sitting on the sofa, palms together and praying he would be gracious, delighted when he was), and I think that won him at least some points across the board.
He didn't come out snarky and insulting. He congratulated Cruz and Rubio, wished the others well, and said he was heading to New Hampshire. Along with everyone else.
It was a good evening all around and I think, that in the sense that Trump had a surprise at the end in the tone and tenor of his capitulation speech, he probably actually did better than Cruz in a way. That pleasant speech might well make people sit up and pay a bit closer attention because 'maybe he isn't the jerk we thought, Mildred.' He revealed another facet to his character, and it's a good one. So, we'll see because there's a long way to go
On the Democrat side, that was a squeaker and I can't help but wonder what the real vote was. Unlike the Repbulicans, the Dems count delegates, not votes, and they don't release the 'real' numbers, the raw count, to the public. Which means box stuffing is entirely possible, do-able, and probable in some precincts.
It'll be interesting to see what comes out of there in a few weeks. Even though it won't really matter by then. At some point, Iowa will take the Democrat results, tally them and announce the 'real' winner. By then, though, it's too late. New Hampshire will be in the bag, South Carolina and Nevada will be underway, and no one will be paying attention to Iowa anymore (sorry, Iowa, but it's the fact).
In the meantime, both candidates are going to claim they won, even though they split the vote almost straight down the middle - separating the two of them at the end of the evening was just two-tenths of one percent which is about as tight as it gets.
Now, if Sanders goes to the Iowa Secretary of State and asks that the raw data be released, that'll be interesting. The Iowa Sec State is a Republican. If, looking at the data, there appears to be anything untoward, she might go up the food chain to ask about it. If it's glaring that the box was stuffed in Hilliary's favor (the DNC might not have believed how tight a race Berns would make it), they might just release that data. Give it three weeks or so. If they do, it'll make for interesting reading. If they don't, well... it'll go down in the books as a really close race.
What's going to get interesting now is this whole e-mail mess with Hilliary.
If Berns did better in Iowa than the DNC and Washington might have projected or expected, if he took the party by surprise, they might be getting nervous. Berns's numbers up in New Hampshire are strong. He's known to the folks there, and he's liked by the folks there. It's almost certain that he's going to win New Hampshire, and probably by a lot.
If he blows Hilliary out of the water up there, and if he can get his ground game going in South Carolina, where it's currently lagging, badly, and Nevada, and make it look like he's going to give Hilliary a run for her and the DNC's money, the Dems might decide to cut their losses. There is, after all, that little matter of the e-mails and the server, etc.
One thing that Bernie hasn't done to date is tackle Hilliary head-on over that. If he had challenged her on it leading up to last night, he very well could have had a clear win in Iowa. If he decides not to make that same mistake going forward, if he raises the question in people's minds that she can't be trusted with even middling decisions, he could start to walk away with this
Cue the legal paper chase through the halls of Justice, an indictment, a stepping down and a tossing in of Biden.
Even if Obie-One and the Democrat machine deny the indictment and negotiate the charges down to a misdemeanor, I think it's a sixty-forty proposition or better that Comey and the FBI will be furious with the manipulation. If they're mad enough, if they have a strong enough case to get a conviction and the Democrats wave their hands to make it go away, there might be some embarrassing leaks from Foggy Bottom as we get closer to the election.
No matter, the DNC is getting backed into a corner with Hilliary and the mess she's created, and Berns's surprising strength in this process. They can't wait too long because if they get much past Super Tuesday - March 1st, which is the day on which fifteen states either vote or caucus - they're going to have a real uphill battle to sell Biden as a replacement for Hilliary.
Keep watching - we're just getting started!
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)