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
Monday, April 25, 2016
Monday, April 18, 2016
Broken Ankle, Life & Stuff - but Juan is wrong
It's not my ankle, thank goodness, but my MIL's - and I do have sympathy for her, but being a human being and at least somewhat selfish, I am glad it isn't mine. That, Visual Basic, hockey and baseball have been the distractions the past several days. I'm back, though, and happy to be so.
Despite the distractions, I did not miss much on the political front. It's too fascinating not to watch, and sitting around a hospital room for several hours each of the past few days has been a good opportunity.
I caught the series of attempts at explanation of election theft and corruption from the GOP / RNC all weekend. "It's da rules!" And, this morning on CNN, there was a question by a talking head that made me snort in derision and get very annoyed with the respondent. There's also the Juan Williams nonsense that just about dislocated my jaw when it dropped.
Regarding the GOP / RNC - the party is still shrugging its collective shoulders and saying, "So? We're corrupt. We know it and now you know it, so what are you going to do about it? Now give us your money, we need it so we can fund this system we've got going."
I'm surprised, given the frequency of those shrugs, that they don't have bigger pains in their collective neck than they do.
What's striking is that this is the only time in my life I can think of when open bribery is perfectly okay. You can't bribe a cop, you'll go to jail. You can't bribe a judge, you'll go to prison. But you can bribe a politician - or at least a political operative. That's perfectly okay. It's all out in the open and no one, except the electorate who are having their voices stripped from the process, seems to care.
What I haven't yet heard, aside from "but they're the rules", is why the GOP / RNC holds that it's perfectly okay to buy votes. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge - here's a bag full of expensive goodies - you'll vote for me now, right? They haven't even given a glance toward what's honorable and that just serves to make my disgust with them that much deeper.
My snort of derision and deep feeling of annoyance came from the fact that one of Trump's representatives missed a golden opportunity. Now, to be fair, I don't actually know whether he is 'official' or not, but he was asked a question I would have leapt all over. It had to do with the buying of delegates:
"Why doesn't Trump play by the same (corrupt / dishonorable / semi-criminal) set of rules Cruz is playing by?"
What he didn't say but should have is: "Because Mr. Trump has ethics and character. He hasn't gotten where he is by cheating and bribery, and he's not going to start now. If Mr. Cruz chooses to buy votes and politicians, that's his prerogative, but it's underhanded and dishonors our democratic election process."
It is very annoying that that was not the answer given. Instead it was pure blather that really offered nothing substantive. Frankly, a fresh dog dropping would have more substance than the half-answer given. In fact, that half answer was so unmemorable I don't remember it. I just remember annoyance that this talker didn't have the brains to forcefully and unequivocally state that if Ted Cruz chooses to be a sleaze, let him, but we are not going to lower ourselves into that cesspit.
This has been all over the place this weekend, ever since Trump started pointing out how corrupt and undemocratic this election system is. Reince Priebus (for whom I actually feel a little tiny bit sorry since he's the one holding the crap-filled bag) has been out there shrugging madly. "These are the rules." As if rules aren't there to be broken and as if rules that are bad cannot be changed.
What Priebus totally ignored, and what I'm sure he doesn't want us to see because this might be a wave of the party future, is this (excerpted from the Denver Post article of August 25, 2015, bold typeface added for emphasis):
Colorado will not vote for a Republican candidate for president at its 2016 caucus after party leaders approved a little-noticed shift that may diminish the state's clout in the most open nomination contest in the modern era.
The GOP executive committee has voted to cancel the traditional presidential preference poll after the national party changed its rules to require a state's delegates to support the candidate who wins the caucus vote.
State Republican Party Chairman Steve House said the party's 24-member executive committee made the unanimous decision Friday — six members were absent — to skip the preference poll.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/colorado-republicans-cancel-2016-presidential-caucus-vote
So there it is: 18 people in the state of Colorado decided the primary election for all of the nearly 1,000,000 registered Republican voters. Yeah - there's democracy in action for you - not rigged, not unethical or dishonorable.
Whatever. What's come clear to me is that the GOP / RNC doesn't want people to actually participate in the election process - it's too bothersome. They just want our money - thus the fundraising letters and so on.
Well, they're not getting mine. Whether you choose to pony up for a corrupt process is up to you, but I value the representation of my labor too much to throw it into a pit toilet.
Regarding Juan Williams - he's an idiot. I knew he was long ago, but now he's proved it. He's got a new book out and yesterday he was asked, "If the Founders came back today, what would they think?"
He responded, "They'd be thrilled!"
Uh... No. They'd be doubled over heaving up their guts at what's gone on.
Central Banking - There's an excellent article on the "Constitutionality" of the Central Bank (aka Federal Reserve), here:
http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/33-2/465.pdf
Bottom line, though, is that while Alexander Hamilton supported the idea of a central bank, many of the Founders did not.
Enumerated Powers - There were three distinct types of power given to the Federal Government. Not three hundred or three thousand, just three. And the Founders were explicit in how the division was to fall: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So if it was not given to the United States by the Constitution it was a State's Right, or a People's Right.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 32 (of the Federalist Papers):
Government has shoved down our collective throats Obamacare.
Government has instituted a tax system not called out in the Constitution.
Government has created a fourth and separate branch of government in the form of the Central Bank / Federal Reserve that is not subject to the will of the People. This is a "bank" not subject to government control, audit, disclosure or intervention - it stands apart from and superior to the Legislative and Judicial branches.
Government funds abortion - and doesn't bat an eye over the fact that the organization on the front line of that effort harvests baby parts.
We have a socialist running for president who wants to take my wealth (non-existent though it is) and pass it off to someone else in pure Marxist fashion - from each according to their ability to each according to their need. It's still not defined who has ability, aside from being able to get your butt out the door and hold a job, versus who has need.
Since I have a house that's falling apart, and car that's twelve years old and can just barely make ends meet, I'd say I have need, but the fact that I have an income is red meat to those who don't.
So no. I do not believe for one instant that the Founders coming back today would be thrilled. Horrified, yes. Disgusted, yes. Dismayed, yes. Not thrilled. And then there's all that's going on in this so-called electoral process where the People's voice doesn't count for squat.
Now - we're all caught up. I hope you had a wonderful weekend and a better week coming up.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Despite the distractions, I did not miss much on the political front. It's too fascinating not to watch, and sitting around a hospital room for several hours each of the past few days has been a good opportunity.
I caught the series of attempts at explanation of election theft and corruption from the GOP / RNC all weekend. "It's da rules!" And, this morning on CNN, there was a question by a talking head that made me snort in derision and get very annoyed with the respondent. There's also the Juan Williams nonsense that just about dislocated my jaw when it dropped.
Regarding the GOP / RNC - the party is still shrugging its collective shoulders and saying, "So? We're corrupt. We know it and now you know it, so what are you going to do about it? Now give us your money, we need it so we can fund this system we've got going."
I'm surprised, given the frequency of those shrugs, that they don't have bigger pains in their collective neck than they do.
What's striking is that this is the only time in my life I can think of when open bribery is perfectly okay. You can't bribe a cop, you'll go to jail. You can't bribe a judge, you'll go to prison. But you can bribe a politician - or at least a political operative. That's perfectly okay. It's all out in the open and no one, except the electorate who are having their voices stripped from the process, seems to care.
What I haven't yet heard, aside from "but they're the rules", is why the GOP / RNC holds that it's perfectly okay to buy votes. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge - here's a bag full of expensive goodies - you'll vote for me now, right? They haven't even given a glance toward what's honorable and that just serves to make my disgust with them that much deeper.
My snort of derision and deep feeling of annoyance came from the fact that one of Trump's representatives missed a golden opportunity. Now, to be fair, I don't actually know whether he is 'official' or not, but he was asked a question I would have leapt all over. It had to do with the buying of delegates:
"Why doesn't Trump play by the same (corrupt / dishonorable / semi-criminal) set of rules Cruz is playing by?"
What he didn't say but should have is: "Because Mr. Trump has ethics and character. He hasn't gotten where he is by cheating and bribery, and he's not going to start now. If Mr. Cruz chooses to buy votes and politicians, that's his prerogative, but it's underhanded and dishonors our democratic election process."
It is very annoying that that was not the answer given. Instead it was pure blather that really offered nothing substantive. Frankly, a fresh dog dropping would have more substance than the half-answer given. In fact, that half answer was so unmemorable I don't remember it. I just remember annoyance that this talker didn't have the brains to forcefully and unequivocally state that if Ted Cruz chooses to be a sleaze, let him, but we are not going to lower ourselves into that cesspit.
This has been all over the place this weekend, ever since Trump started pointing out how corrupt and undemocratic this election system is. Reince Priebus (for whom I actually feel a little tiny bit sorry since he's the one holding the crap-filled bag) has been out there shrugging madly. "These are the rules." As if rules aren't there to be broken and as if rules that are bad cannot be changed.
What Priebus totally ignored, and what I'm sure he doesn't want us to see because this might be a wave of the party future, is this (excerpted from the Denver Post article of August 25, 2015, bold typeface added for emphasis):
Colorado will not vote for a Republican candidate for president at its 2016 caucus after party leaders approved a little-noticed shift that may diminish the state's clout in the most open nomination contest in the modern era.
The GOP executive committee has voted to cancel the traditional presidential preference poll after the national party changed its rules to require a state's delegates to support the candidate who wins the caucus vote.
State Republican Party Chairman Steve House said the party's 24-member executive committee made the unanimous decision Friday — six members were absent — to skip the preference poll.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/colorado-republicans-cancel-2016-presidential-caucus-vote
So there it is: 18 people in the state of Colorado decided the primary election for all of the nearly 1,000,000 registered Republican voters. Yeah - there's democracy in action for you - not rigged, not unethical or dishonorable.
Whatever. What's come clear to me is that the GOP / RNC doesn't want people to actually participate in the election process - it's too bothersome. They just want our money - thus the fundraising letters and so on.
Well, they're not getting mine. Whether you choose to pony up for a corrupt process is up to you, but I value the representation of my labor too much to throw it into a pit toilet.
Regarding Juan Williams - he's an idiot. I knew he was long ago, but now he's proved it. He's got a new book out and yesterday he was asked, "If the Founders came back today, what would they think?"
He responded, "They'd be thrilled!"
Uh... No. They'd be doubled over heaving up their guts at what's gone on.
Central Banking - There's an excellent article on the "Constitutionality" of the Central Bank (aka Federal Reserve), here:
http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/33-2/465.pdf
Bottom line, though, is that while Alexander Hamilton supported the idea of a central bank, many of the Founders did not.
Enumerated Powers - There were three distinct types of power given to the Federal Government. Not three hundred or three thousand, just three. And the Founders were explicit in how the division was to fall: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So if it was not given to the United States by the Constitution it was a State's Right, or a People's Right.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 32 (of the Federalist Papers):
This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty, would only exist in three cases: [i] where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; [ii] where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; and [iii] where it granted an authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally contradictory and repugnant.So, no. I don't believe that if the Founders came back today they would be at all thrilled with how things are.
Government has shoved down our collective throats Obamacare.
Government has instituted a tax system not called out in the Constitution.
Government has created a fourth and separate branch of government in the form of the Central Bank / Federal Reserve that is not subject to the will of the People. This is a "bank" not subject to government control, audit, disclosure or intervention - it stands apart from and superior to the Legislative and Judicial branches.
Government funds abortion - and doesn't bat an eye over the fact that the organization on the front line of that effort harvests baby parts.
We have a socialist running for president who wants to take my wealth (non-existent though it is) and pass it off to someone else in pure Marxist fashion - from each according to their ability to each according to their need. It's still not defined who has ability, aside from being able to get your butt out the door and hold a job, versus who has need.
Since I have a house that's falling apart, and car that's twelve years old and can just barely make ends meet, I'd say I have need, but the fact that I have an income is red meat to those who don't.
So no. I do not believe for one instant that the Founders coming back today would be thrilled. Horrified, yes. Disgusted, yes. Dismayed, yes. Not thrilled. And then there's all that's going on in this so-called electoral process where the People's voice doesn't count for squat.
Now - we're all caught up. I hope you had a wonderful weekend and a better week coming up.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Reince - Be Honest for a Change, Wouldja?
Okay - I'm confounded, I'll admit it. After all, I'm 'just' a voter. Sitting here, in my kitchen as I write this, it looks like Reince Priebus and his puppet masters are just making things up as they go. This day it's this, the next day it's that - all in an effort to suppress the will of the American voter.
I'm registered with the party of my choice, have been for years. Now I'm holding my nose until June 8th, fighting the waves of nausea brought on by that party's dishonesty and malfeasance. I'm hoping that the nausea won't rise to levels that will overwhelm me - June seems a long way off.
When June 7th comes I'll go out and vote. Which means standing in line and taking time out of my day and life just as tens of millions of others have done this year. Even though I have other things to do, things I need to do and want to do, I'll take however long it takes to go vote, because I think it's important.
On June 8th I will go down to my local post office, and I will pick up a new voter registration card, and I will leave the party of which I have been a (formerly) proud member for nearly forty years. I will re-register as an Independent. I will not sully my soul by staying in the pig sty of Republican politics for one instant longer than it takes for me to vote for Donald Trump in this primary.
But given recent events - what happened in Colorado, the buying and selling of delegate votes in Louisiana and Arkansas and other states - I'm not sure it is important any more.
Across America, millions of people have put their lives on hold for hours at a time - some for five or six hours or longer - to go caucus or stand in line to vote. They voted. The majority to date have said they want Donald Trump to be the next president. In the Republican race, he has won more contests than any other candidate. He's got about two million more votes than Ted Cruz, but all of that might not count.
Ted Cruz is out buying - yes, folks, buying - delegates. And I do not give one little tiny rip that he says he's not, that it's all by the rules.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but buying is when you give someone something in exchange for something else. You give the supermarket your money in exchange for your groceries. That is buying.
In this case, Cruz is buying delegates by promising them things or giving them things. He is shopping through the election aisles for delegates - all sitting on their shelves and waiting for him to make an offer - $1.39 for this, $5.59 for that - and when he gets to the checkout (Convention), he will pay for them.
Delegates should not be commodities easily bought and sold by the highest, sleaziest bidder - they should be required to represent the voices of the people who sent them to Cleveland - and not on just the first ballot. Bound delegates should remain bound for at least two ballots to give the process a chance to work as the candidates buy, sell and trade the souls of those people who are there, allegedly, to represent the voters who got them there.
And I do not give the least little rip if it's a swag bag loaded with expensive gifts (legal) or political favor (not legal). It is precisely the same thing because in the final analysis, it is an exchange: For this I will give you that.
I just wish to Heaven that Reince Priebus would find his spine long enough to shush his puppet masters and then be honest.
Go ahead, Reince, tell all of those tens of millions of people who voted for Trump in Iowa and New Hampshire and all the other states that it was just a show, that their time, their energy, their passion doesn't count for anything.
Instead of wasting our time, our passion, our energy and attention listening to the people who are in front of us as candidates, just tell us flat out so there is no misunderstanding, that there is no point in us even paying attention to this circus. Then we can turn off our television sets, ignore the political ads, and just stop paying even lip service to this. We can go back to living our lives, walking the treadmill of futility all so we can get nowhere.
We can go back to being the hopeless lab rats the RNC and GOP see us as. Sitting in our cages of economic despair, just waiting for the next tax to fall on our shoulders, the next corporation to close its doors, our hope for ourselves and our children and grandchildren to turn to desert dust as we are put out of work while employers move overseas.
Who gives a good goddamn if American citizens live or thrive?
The GOP doesn't. Their actions make it clear they don't.
The RNC doesn't - they are conniving and colluding with other people not even in this race, hiding behind closed doors, working hard to thwart the will of the Americans who have gone out to vote, who have made it clear that we, the People called out in the Bill of Rights and Constitution, want Donald Trump as president.
The Washington Elites don't. Of course they don't because a non-politician, someone who cannot be bought and sold, manipulated and controlled is going to upset their apple cart.
You know what, though? I. Don't. Care. I don't care what they don't want.
From the preamble to the Bill of Rights all through the Constitution, We the People have the power to rule our lives.
This is, as it has been from the outset, a government of, by and for The People - and if the RNC, the GOP Establishment and the Elites don't get it, they shouldn't be surprised if this bloodless revolution they are seeing in the voting booth becomes something else. They will have brought it on themselves.
So, c'mon, Reince - just take that deep breath. Tell us none of this matters, that it doesn't count for anything.
Or get the Hell out of our way. Stop trying to manipulate us and our government - follow the will of the People and tell the delegates that they are not for sale. That they have been entrusted by the voters and are obligated to us.
Now - put up or shut up, 'k?
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
I'm registered with the party of my choice, have been for years. Now I'm holding my nose until June 8th, fighting the waves of nausea brought on by that party's dishonesty and malfeasance. I'm hoping that the nausea won't rise to levels that will overwhelm me - June seems a long way off.
When June 7th comes I'll go out and vote. Which means standing in line and taking time out of my day and life just as tens of millions of others have done this year. Even though I have other things to do, things I need to do and want to do, I'll take however long it takes to go vote, because I think it's important.
On June 8th I will go down to my local post office, and I will pick up a new voter registration card, and I will leave the party of which I have been a (formerly) proud member for nearly forty years. I will re-register as an Independent. I will not sully my soul by staying in the pig sty of Republican politics for one instant longer than it takes for me to vote for Donald Trump in this primary.
But given recent events - what happened in Colorado, the buying and selling of delegate votes in Louisiana and Arkansas and other states - I'm not sure it is important any more.
Across America, millions of people have put their lives on hold for hours at a time - some for five or six hours or longer - to go caucus or stand in line to vote. They voted. The majority to date have said they want Donald Trump to be the next president. In the Republican race, he has won more contests than any other candidate. He's got about two million more votes than Ted Cruz, but all of that might not count.
Ted Cruz is out buying - yes, folks, buying - delegates. And I do not give one little tiny rip that he says he's not, that it's all by the rules.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but buying is when you give someone something in exchange for something else. You give the supermarket your money in exchange for your groceries. That is buying.
In this case, Cruz is buying delegates by promising them things or giving them things. He is shopping through the election aisles for delegates - all sitting on their shelves and waiting for him to make an offer - $1.39 for this, $5.59 for that - and when he gets to the checkout (Convention), he will pay for them.
Delegates should not be commodities easily bought and sold by the highest, sleaziest bidder - they should be required to represent the voices of the people who sent them to Cleveland - and not on just the first ballot. Bound delegates should remain bound for at least two ballots to give the process a chance to work as the candidates buy, sell and trade the souls of those people who are there, allegedly, to represent the voters who got them there.
And I do not give the least little rip if it's a swag bag loaded with expensive gifts (legal) or political favor (not legal). It is precisely the same thing because in the final analysis, it is an exchange: For this I will give you that.
I just wish to Heaven that Reince Priebus would find his spine long enough to shush his puppet masters and then be honest.
Go ahead, Reince, tell all of those tens of millions of people who voted for Trump in Iowa and New Hampshire and all the other states that it was just a show, that their time, their energy, their passion doesn't count for anything.
Instead of wasting our time, our passion, our energy and attention listening to the people who are in front of us as candidates, just tell us flat out so there is no misunderstanding, that there is no point in us even paying attention to this circus. Then we can turn off our television sets, ignore the political ads, and just stop paying even lip service to this. We can go back to living our lives, walking the treadmill of futility all so we can get nowhere.
We can go back to being the hopeless lab rats the RNC and GOP see us as. Sitting in our cages of economic despair, just waiting for the next tax to fall on our shoulders, the next corporation to close its doors, our hope for ourselves and our children and grandchildren to turn to desert dust as we are put out of work while employers move overseas.
Who gives a good goddamn if American citizens live or thrive?
The GOP doesn't. Their actions make it clear they don't.
The RNC doesn't - they are conniving and colluding with other people not even in this race, hiding behind closed doors, working hard to thwart the will of the Americans who have gone out to vote, who have made it clear that we, the People called out in the Bill of Rights and Constitution, want Donald Trump as president.
The Washington Elites don't. Of course they don't because a non-politician, someone who cannot be bought and sold, manipulated and controlled is going to upset their apple cart.
You know what, though? I. Don't. Care. I don't care what they don't want.
From the preamble to the Bill of Rights all through the Constitution, We the People have the power to rule our lives.
This is, as it has been from the outset, a government of, by and for The People - and if the RNC, the GOP Establishment and the Elites don't get it, they shouldn't be surprised if this bloodless revolution they are seeing in the voting booth becomes something else. They will have brought it on themselves.
So, c'mon, Reince - just take that deep breath. Tell us none of this matters, that it doesn't count for anything.
Or get the Hell out of our way. Stop trying to manipulate us and our government - follow the will of the People and tell the delegates that they are not for sale. That they have been entrusted by the voters and are obligated to us.
Now - put up or shut up, 'k?
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Fascism is Alive & Well in the GOP
Robert Zubrin is the individual who wrote a resolution that "prevented" any of the Colorado delegates from voting for Donald Trump in the recent cluster event in Colorado Springs. Spewage like his makes me want to throw-up.
This is not American because it is the encouragement of the suppression of free speech, free thought and free association. American Thinker allowing his steaming waste to sit on its site is a matter of free speech, but it disgusts me. However, it is free speech so I will not rail against them, but it is disappointing and I don't know that I'll be going back there. If you want to find what this pile of manure contains you can - I've given you the pointers, but I will not provide the link - it's too foul to waste space on it here.
When one individual stands in front of another individual or a group, and dictates how that individual or group shall conduct themselves, that is fascism. They are taking away the free choice - the liberty - of the individual or group being confronted.
If I could think of a more condemning word, anything stronger that's fit for print, I'd use it. This man exemplifies the worst of human character by setting himself above the liberty he claims to embrace in his post.
Actions speak much louder than words and the fact that he can say what he did, write what he did, shouts what he thinks, that squelching freedom of thought or action in others is perfectly all right.
Now shame on those others, the people who went along with this individual's "resolution". Obviously they are incapable of thinking for themselves, for standing up and saying, no matter how they as an individual feel, that deciding what is right for everyone irrespective of personal view or opinion is wrong.
They are less than sheep - they are brainless, spineless and unthinking parasites, not caring that by signing onto such a resolution - particularly given the broader circumstances surrounding it - that this is not a democratic effort. This is, pure and simple, dictatorship.
These people were under zero obligation to follow this man's "resolution". Rather, the Colorado GOP had an obligation to tell him where to get off because as soon as they didn't, they joined him in creating an un-democratic construct.
If the people of Colorado think they are well-served by their Republican party and this kind of control, God help them. It is crystal clear to me that in Colorado Democracy has died and fascism has taken its place.
The fact that the Republican National Committee hasn't stood up to demand that this person stand down is telling of the rank corruption permeating the entire organization. Just more proof that the Establishment's greatest fear is that if no one showed up to vote on election day their corrupt power structure would be fully revealed in all its rotten glory.
What they don't get is that Donald Trump is not only successful, he is decent. Or perhaps that's their problem with him.
I watched the CNN Town Hall with Trump and his family last night. I was already in his corner but that man and his family impressed me.
Children are a reflection of their parents, perhaps even the best, most accurate reflection when you get down to it. They absorb what they see and experience from the time of their birth through all their formative years.
If a child is made to believe that everything is theirs, they'll be selfish.
If they think that no one else matters, they'll be uncaring.
If they think they will always win, they will never learn how to lose.
If they are never taught courtesy and respect, why should they show those attributes?
If they are taught that, because they are rich they are better than others, we end up with kids like that idiot in Texas who was let off of serious jail time because he was never taught the value of human life. He claimed 'affluenza' and got away with it.
Watching and listening to Trump's children last night I was humbled to see what a great family he has raised. Poised, respectful, thoughtful, articulate - everything any parent could wish their children to be, as a reflection of their upbringing. Those individuals told me more about Donald Trump and his character than any interview with the man, could.
If he, a decent, hard-working, intelligent man with a clear focus on what this country needs to improve not only the quality of life for its citizens, but its standing in the world isn't qualified, I don't know who is. Certainly none of the other candidates are, because none have the world vision Trump has shown.
He said we're on precarious footing - another financial bubble that will be catastrophic when it bursts. First, he was ridiculed - that was last week. This week, a number of those laughing stopped long enough to examine what he said, and they've admitted he's right.
Art Laffer is not a Trump fan, but he was on Fox Business last night and he agreed - we are in a situation where, when (not if, but when) this bubble bursts, the financial collapse of 2007 / 2008 will look like a child's tea party. A number of other prominent economists have been muttering into their armpits, 'dammit - he's right'.
They don't like it - they don't like telling average Americans things like that because it makes them nervous.
When average people get nervous they shy away from risky investments and look for more stable places to park their money. Unfortunately, that financial movement would bring out the burst faster than it would happen otherwise, so they encourage Joe and Jo Sixpack to keep their money where it is - even though those people will, when the bubble does burst, as it will, lose far more than they would if they moved it now.
But, it seems that the Establishment - because of Trump's vision and understanding of the real world and what it all means - want anyone but Trump. So they'll settle for someone they can manipulate - a Cruz or a Clinton.
It's disgusting and the fact that we have individuals shutting down free speech, free through and free association - and the Establishment in the form of the Republican National Committee and GOP are allowing this to happen - stinks to high Heaven.
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
This is not American because it is the encouragement of the suppression of free speech, free thought and free association. American Thinker allowing his steaming waste to sit on its site is a matter of free speech, but it disgusts me. However, it is free speech so I will not rail against them, but it is disappointing and I don't know that I'll be going back there. If you want to find what this pile of manure contains you can - I've given you the pointers, but I will not provide the link - it's too foul to waste space on it here.
When one individual stands in front of another individual or a group, and dictates how that individual or group shall conduct themselves, that is fascism. They are taking away the free choice - the liberty - of the individual or group being confronted.
If I could think of a more condemning word, anything stronger that's fit for print, I'd use it. This man exemplifies the worst of human character by setting himself above the liberty he claims to embrace in his post.
Actions speak much louder than words and the fact that he can say what he did, write what he did, shouts what he thinks, that squelching freedom of thought or action in others is perfectly all right.
Now shame on those others, the people who went along with this individual's "resolution". Obviously they are incapable of thinking for themselves, for standing up and saying, no matter how they as an individual feel, that deciding what is right for everyone irrespective of personal view or opinion is wrong.
They are less than sheep - they are brainless, spineless and unthinking parasites, not caring that by signing onto such a resolution - particularly given the broader circumstances surrounding it - that this is not a democratic effort. This is, pure and simple, dictatorship.
These people were under zero obligation to follow this man's "resolution". Rather, the Colorado GOP had an obligation to tell him where to get off because as soon as they didn't, they joined him in creating an un-democratic construct.
If the people of Colorado think they are well-served by their Republican party and this kind of control, God help them. It is crystal clear to me that in Colorado Democracy has died and fascism has taken its place.
The fact that the Republican National Committee hasn't stood up to demand that this person stand down is telling of the rank corruption permeating the entire organization. Just more proof that the Establishment's greatest fear is that if no one showed up to vote on election day their corrupt power structure would be fully revealed in all its rotten glory.
What they don't get is that Donald Trump is not only successful, he is decent. Or perhaps that's their problem with him.
I watched the CNN Town Hall with Trump and his family last night. I was already in his corner but that man and his family impressed me.
Children are a reflection of their parents, perhaps even the best, most accurate reflection when you get down to it. They absorb what they see and experience from the time of their birth through all their formative years.
If a child is made to believe that everything is theirs, they'll be selfish.
If they think that no one else matters, they'll be uncaring.
If they think they will always win, they will never learn how to lose.
If they are never taught courtesy and respect, why should they show those attributes?
If they are taught that, because they are rich they are better than others, we end up with kids like that idiot in Texas who was let off of serious jail time because he was never taught the value of human life. He claimed 'affluenza' and got away with it.
Watching and listening to Trump's children last night I was humbled to see what a great family he has raised. Poised, respectful, thoughtful, articulate - everything any parent could wish their children to be, as a reflection of their upbringing. Those individuals told me more about Donald Trump and his character than any interview with the man, could.
If he, a decent, hard-working, intelligent man with a clear focus on what this country needs to improve not only the quality of life for its citizens, but its standing in the world isn't qualified, I don't know who is. Certainly none of the other candidates are, because none have the world vision Trump has shown.
He said we're on precarious footing - another financial bubble that will be catastrophic when it bursts. First, he was ridiculed - that was last week. This week, a number of those laughing stopped long enough to examine what he said, and they've admitted he's right.
Art Laffer is not a Trump fan, but he was on Fox Business last night and he agreed - we are in a situation where, when (not if, but when) this bubble bursts, the financial collapse of 2007 / 2008 will look like a child's tea party. A number of other prominent economists have been muttering into their armpits, 'dammit - he's right'.
They don't like it - they don't like telling average Americans things like that because it makes them nervous.
When average people get nervous they shy away from risky investments and look for more stable places to park their money. Unfortunately, that financial movement would bring out the burst faster than it would happen otherwise, so they encourage Joe and Jo Sixpack to keep their money where it is - even though those people will, when the bubble does burst, as it will, lose far more than they would if they moved it now.
But, it seems that the Establishment - because of Trump's vision and understanding of the real world and what it all means - want anyone but Trump. So they'll settle for someone they can manipulate - a Cruz or a Clinton.
It's disgusting and the fact that we have individuals shutting down free speech, free through and free association - and the Establishment in the form of the Republican National Committee and GOP are allowing this to happen - stinks to high Heaven.
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
The GOP Sleaze Factor
For the past couple of days there has been a lot of discussion crossing the airwaves about the Colorado Republican non-primary, and it is not complimentary. Both the state and the national GOP have infuriated millions of the people who make up their base. And many of those infuriated voters don't even live in the State of Colorado. I live in California and I am furious over this disgusting play.
As soon as the primary season is past, just as soon as I have the chance to vote Trump in the primary here in California, I will reject the GOP and re-register as an Independent. I suspect millions of other people will do the same, and it is all because of the GOP's own malfeasance and pure-d sliminess.
I'm sure this was not something the RNC / GOP Establishment wanted to happen but they have brought it on themselves by their own tone-deaf arrogance. They have insulted every single Republican voter this election season and I will not willingly affiliate myself with a political party so disconnected from its base.
Worse, instead of listening and trying to figure out that they're pissing me and others like me off, they keep shoving their collective head farther up their alimentary canal. All in an effort to not hear what the people of this country are screaming:
We do not want Paul Ryan.
We do not want some other party hack flown in at the last minute and shoved down our throats against our will.
The majority who have spoken so far in their state primaries do not want Ted Cruz. If they did, he would be ahead in the delegate count instead of trailing by more than 200 and a lot farther back if he wasn't such a wheeler-dealer. Which is fine to a point, but buying people who's own characters are highly questionable if a swag bag is all it takes, is disgusting.
What the GOP / RNC wanted was for things behind the scenes to hum along quietly, without anyone paying attention. Kind of like:
So what is all this excitement about Colorado? In case you haven't been listening to the bombast and whining, it's because about a million people in the state of Colorado were cut out of this election. They had their voices silenced by a decision made by their party "representatives".
According to the Colorado Secretary of State records available online, as of April 1st this year, there are more than 957,000 active registered Republicans and more than 1,016,000 Independent voters registered. These are the two voting blocs most likely to vote for Donald Trump. But Colorado canceled it's Republican primary election for this presidential cycle last August.
This isn't just any election cycle. This is the election cycle during which America is choosing its next president for the next four or eight years. And what does the Colorado GOP do? Why, it completely cut its electorate out of the process by not holding a primary.
Instead, the party apparatchiks held district conventions to select representatives to attend a state delegation selection party. In the end, just 6,000 Coloradans attended that. Of those, each who wants to go to the next level had just a matter of seconds to sell themselves to the other attendees for one of thirty-seven delegate slots.
So from a potential field of nearly two million voters, six thousand people got to pick thirty-seven to represent them at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland this July. Now I'm sorry, but to me, a mere tenth of one percentile for whom I didn't even get to vote is not representational.
Worse still is that the Colorado GOP is clearly biased. They set this up specifically so a non-traditional candidate couldn't possibly win their delegates. Now Cruz, being the Washington insider that he is, and probably with a wink and a nod from Colorado party officials, learned of this set-up beforehand, and was able to make hay with it.
This is not America. This is not how our democratic republic is supposed to work. It is one person, one vote and when a political party cuts its base out of an election, that is wrong.
Last night I was watching a program on Fox Business Network and there was a segment in which someone said something profound:
'Take away my vote, the last thing that makes us equal.'
Think about that for a second. That says it all. The one place in life where Americans are perfectly equal is in the voting booth. In the voting booth there is no race, no color, no religion, no economics, no nothing. It is the most level of playing fields - and what the Colorado GOP did was to take that away.
When the dust settled, the Colorado GOP Tweeted:
This Tweet, "We did it. #NeverTrump" was quickly taken down - but they did Tweet it, and it is disgusting as a representation of democracy.
What about all of the people who didn't realize that the primary had been canceled?
Granted, this was decided last August and there were newspaper articles leading up to it, but what recourse did Joe or Josephine Sixpack-Republican voter have if they disagreed with this change?
It was a backroom deal done by the party officials and, from what I've been able to find, they didn't include the electorate in the decision. They just did it. Silencing Joe and Jo Sixpack, cutting them off and shutting them out in the cold.
What about all of the people in Colorado who wanted to speak for themselves, to choose and cast a vote for a particular candidate? Nope. Sorry - you're not allowed.
What about all of the people who wanted to participate in the process, but couldn't because of health or economic reasons? The party's party was held in Colorado Springs - what if you couldn't get from home to there because you didn't have a car, or couldn't afford the bus ticket? Sorry. Too bad, so sad.
What the Republican party did in Colorado was completely shut out the electorate. They decided who was not going to be their candidate long before their turn came up to vote. The people of Colorado who might support Donald Trump or John Kasich got royally screwed by their own political party.
Now isn't that nice?
And what's going to happen with me is I'll keep doing what I do now. When the Slime Master appears on my television screen, I change channels. #NeverCruz.
Come June 8th, I will change my party affiliation - for good.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
As soon as the primary season is past, just as soon as I have the chance to vote Trump in the primary here in California, I will reject the GOP and re-register as an Independent. I suspect millions of other people will do the same, and it is all because of the GOP's own malfeasance and pure-d sliminess.
I'm sure this was not something the RNC / GOP Establishment wanted to happen but they have brought it on themselves by their own tone-deaf arrogance. They have insulted every single Republican voter this election season and I will not willingly affiliate myself with a political party so disconnected from its base.
Worse, instead of listening and trying to figure out that they're pissing me and others like me off, they keep shoving their collective head farther up their alimentary canal. All in an effort to not hear what the people of this country are screaming:
We do not want Paul Ryan.
We do not want some other party hack flown in at the last minute and shoved down our throats against our will.
The majority who have spoken so far in their state primaries do not want Ted Cruz. If they did, he would be ahead in the delegate count instead of trailing by more than 200 and a lot farther back if he wasn't such a wheeler-dealer. Which is fine to a point, but buying people who's own characters are highly questionable if a swag bag is all it takes, is disgusting.
What the GOP / RNC wanted was for things behind the scenes to hum along quietly, without anyone paying attention. Kind of like:
So what is all this excitement about Colorado? In case you haven't been listening to the bombast and whining, it's because about a million people in the state of Colorado were cut out of this election. They had their voices silenced by a decision made by their party "representatives".
According to the Colorado Secretary of State records available online, as of April 1st this year, there are more than 957,000 active registered Republicans and more than 1,016,000 Independent voters registered. These are the two voting blocs most likely to vote for Donald Trump. But Colorado canceled it's Republican primary election for this presidential cycle last August.
This isn't just any election cycle. This is the election cycle during which America is choosing its next president for the next four or eight years. And what does the Colorado GOP do? Why, it completely cut its electorate out of the process by not holding a primary.
Instead, the party apparatchiks held district conventions to select representatives to attend a state delegation selection party. In the end, just 6,000 Coloradans attended that. Of those, each who wants to go to the next level had just a matter of seconds to sell themselves to the other attendees for one of thirty-seven delegate slots.
So from a potential field of nearly two million voters, six thousand people got to pick thirty-seven to represent them at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland this July. Now I'm sorry, but to me, a mere tenth of one percentile for whom I didn't even get to vote is not representational.
Worse still is that the Colorado GOP is clearly biased. They set this up specifically so a non-traditional candidate couldn't possibly win their delegates. Now Cruz, being the Washington insider that he is, and probably with a wink and a nod from Colorado party officials, learned of this set-up beforehand, and was able to make hay with it.
This is not America. This is not how our democratic republic is supposed to work. It is one person, one vote and when a political party cuts its base out of an election, that is wrong.
Last night I was watching a program on Fox Business Network and there was a segment in which someone said something profound:
'Take away my vote, the last thing that makes us equal.'
Think about that for a second. That says it all. The one place in life where Americans are perfectly equal is in the voting booth. In the voting booth there is no race, no color, no religion, no economics, no nothing. It is the most level of playing fields - and what the Colorado GOP did was to take that away.
When the dust settled, the Colorado GOP Tweeted:
What about all of the people who didn't realize that the primary had been canceled?
Granted, this was decided last August and there were newspaper articles leading up to it, but what recourse did Joe or Josephine Sixpack-Republican voter have if they disagreed with this change?
It was a backroom deal done by the party officials and, from what I've been able to find, they didn't include the electorate in the decision. They just did it. Silencing Joe and Jo Sixpack, cutting them off and shutting them out in the cold.
What about all of the people in Colorado who wanted to speak for themselves, to choose and cast a vote for a particular candidate? Nope. Sorry - you're not allowed.
What about all of the people who wanted to participate in the process, but couldn't because of health or economic reasons? The party's party was held in Colorado Springs - what if you couldn't get from home to there because you didn't have a car, or couldn't afford the bus ticket? Sorry. Too bad, so sad.
What the Republican party did in Colorado was completely shut out the electorate. They decided who was not going to be their candidate long before their turn came up to vote. The people of Colorado who might support Donald Trump or John Kasich got royally screwed by their own political party.
Now isn't that nice?
And what's going to happen with me is I'll keep doing what I do now. When the Slime Master appears on my television screen, I change channels. #NeverCruz.
Come June 8th, I will change my party affiliation - for good.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Saturday, April 9, 2016
Oh, Good Grief! C'mon Nancy, that's just plain Sexist!
Late yesterday, after spending my morning trying to wrap my brain around a new database design, I popped over to Real Clear Politics for a rest. I hadn't had my daily fix of prose and polls and, when the page opened, I just about fell off my chair.
On their home page was a link to a Los Angeles Times piece by Nancy Cohen: 'Why Women Should Vote For Women'.
On the face of it, that title is pure sexist - just as sexist as if someone named 'Norman' Cohen had written 'Why Men Should Vote for Men'.
C'mon, now, be honest. Do you think there wouldn't be screams from the scalded female contingent if that was a headline in a prominent newspaper? I can hear 'em now.
Attempting to do my due diligence, I followed the link to the L.A. Times's website where it's posted. Uh oh. My 'free trial' has expired. Oh well. I don't care enough about this article or the L.A. Times to pay for their site, so I left. I spent a few minutes trying to track it down somewhere else, but no luck.
No matter because I think this is another case where I can guess what the underlying message in that 'article' is, no matter that it's all wrapped up in fluff.
I don't care about the inner message, though. The title is irritating enough. If you have ovaries and a uterus, then you should vote for someone else with a uterus and ovaries. That is the only criteria. Don't spend time or effort to consider their other qualifications. Don't worry about their character, integrity or honesty. And whatever you do, if you're a woman don't look at a man because he doesn't have those physical features. Never mind that he might actually be better qualified for the job.
There is just one woman running in this presidential race - and she is not qualified - she is resoundingly unqualified. She openly disparaged women abused by her husband - referring to them as 'bimbo eruptions' whenever new allegations surfaced. According to Kathleen Willey, one of the women Billy-Jeff groped, Hilliary was integral to the cover-ups and intimidation of the women assaulted by her husband. The Daily Caller has a short, eye-opening article on this enabling behavior:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/04/clinton-sexual-assault-accuser-admires-trump/
Along the same timeline, there was Filegate from Wikipedia (italics added for emphasis):
The White House FBI files controversy of the Clinton Administration, often referred to as Filegate,[1] arose in June 1996 around improper access in 1993 and 1994 to Federal Bureau of Investigation security-clearance documents. Craig Livingstone, director of the White House's Office of Personnel Security, improperly requested, and received from the FBI, background reports concerning several hundred individuals without asking permission. The revelations provoked a strong political and press reaction because many of the files covered White House employees from previous Republican administrations, including top presidential advisors. Under criticism, Livingstone resigned from his position. Allegations were made that senior White House figures, including First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, may have requested and read the files for political purposes, and that the First Lady had authorized the hiring of the underqualified Livingstone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_FBI_files_controversy
So she hires someone who is underqualified for a position inside the White House. Then this underqualified individual obtains records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation - records that should never have been handed over - and she reads them. Allegedly to obtain potentially problematic information so it can be used against those individuals. This smacks to me of a police state. By what right did she - the First Lady, not a security official - look at those records? Whatever happened to privacy rights?
And she was up to her neck in that scandal according to Freedom Watch USA (italics added for emphasis):
The case, first filed in 1996 when it was discovered that the Clinton White House illegally obtained FBI files on adversaries, and used them to smear them, continues to this day. Strangely, although Mrs. Clinton is the principal defendant, and although there is sworn testimony, obtained during earlier discovery that Mrs. Clinton was the mastermind of this illegal scheme, the Court has never granted Plaintiffs requests to depose her — perhaps fearing a political backlash in the scandal ridden and "politically correct" cesspool known as Washington, D.C. But now that Mrs. Clinton has moved to try to get out of the case — undoubtedly so it does not hang over her head during her years as Secretary of State — it is mandatory that she be deposed before the Court can even consider her motion to be let out of the case. Indeed, even her husband, Bill Clinton, who was president at the time, had to be deposed in the Paula Jones case. Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, ranks lower than a U.S. president and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Jones case that even a president is subject to deposition for his illegal acts.
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/hillary-clinton-tries-to-escape-from-on-going-filegate-case
Breitbart has an even better article that talks about Filegate, Email-Gate1 and Email-Gate2 (Benghazi):
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/04/hillary-clintons-long-history-of-hiding-documents/
Nancy Cohen's mindset is more than annoying. It's dangerous. Worse still, undermining this woman's credibility entirely, is that the premise of that article is just plain stupid.
Put on your hiring hat. If you are looking for a candidate for a job, would you hire someone just because she's a woman? Well, I can think of a few cases - swimsuit model, bra model, haute couture evening gown model - but Hilliary Clinton or any of the women candidates running for office aren't applying for any of those. They are applying for jobs that will give them some control over our lives.
She's already proved, through the aiding, abetting and enabling of her husband's proclivity to disrespect women by sexually assaulting them that she doesn't give a rip about women or their issues. Through Filegate, she has shown that she is perfectly happy to sit down with records the federal government keeps on citizens. Those were FBI records, but what if it happened to be your IRS filing records? Or what about your Obamacare records? They're all right there, at the government's fingertips.
That is why I want someone I can trust to do the right thing in that office.
Now I don't know about Nancy Cohen, but I don't store my brain inside my nether regions. I also have the capacity to analyze and think independently. If I thought Hilliary Clinton had one speck of anything worthwhile I'd consider her for this job. But she doesn't and I don't, so I won't.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
On their home page was a link to a Los Angeles Times piece by Nancy Cohen: 'Why Women Should Vote For Women'.
On the face of it, that title is pure sexist - just as sexist as if someone named 'Norman' Cohen had written 'Why Men Should Vote for Men'.
C'mon, now, be honest. Do you think there wouldn't be screams from the scalded female contingent if that was a headline in a prominent newspaper? I can hear 'em now.
Attempting to do my due diligence, I followed the link to the L.A. Times's website where it's posted. Uh oh. My 'free trial' has expired. Oh well. I don't care enough about this article or the L.A. Times to pay for their site, so I left. I spent a few minutes trying to track it down somewhere else, but no luck.
No matter because I think this is another case where I can guess what the underlying message in that 'article' is, no matter that it's all wrapped up in fluff.
I don't care about the inner message, though. The title is irritating enough. If you have ovaries and a uterus, then you should vote for someone else with a uterus and ovaries. That is the only criteria. Don't spend time or effort to consider their other qualifications. Don't worry about their character, integrity or honesty. And whatever you do, if you're a woman don't look at a man because he doesn't have those physical features. Never mind that he might actually be better qualified for the job.
There is just one woman running in this presidential race - and she is not qualified - she is resoundingly unqualified. She openly disparaged women abused by her husband - referring to them as 'bimbo eruptions' whenever new allegations surfaced. According to Kathleen Willey, one of the women Billy-Jeff groped, Hilliary was integral to the cover-ups and intimidation of the women assaulted by her husband. The Daily Caller has a short, eye-opening article on this enabling behavior:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/04/clinton-sexual-assault-accuser-admires-trump/
Along the same timeline, there was Filegate from Wikipedia (italics added for emphasis):
The White House FBI files controversy of the Clinton Administration, often referred to as Filegate,[1] arose in June 1996 around improper access in 1993 and 1994 to Federal Bureau of Investigation security-clearance documents. Craig Livingstone, director of the White House's Office of Personnel Security, improperly requested, and received from the FBI, background reports concerning several hundred individuals without asking permission. The revelations provoked a strong political and press reaction because many of the files covered White House employees from previous Republican administrations, including top presidential advisors. Under criticism, Livingstone resigned from his position. Allegations were made that senior White House figures, including First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, may have requested and read the files for political purposes, and that the First Lady had authorized the hiring of the underqualified Livingstone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_FBI_files_controversy
So she hires someone who is underqualified for a position inside the White House. Then this underqualified individual obtains records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation - records that should never have been handed over - and she reads them. Allegedly to obtain potentially problematic information so it can be used against those individuals. This smacks to me of a police state. By what right did she - the First Lady, not a security official - look at those records? Whatever happened to privacy rights?
And she was up to her neck in that scandal according to Freedom Watch USA (italics added for emphasis):
The case, first filed in 1996 when it was discovered that the Clinton White House illegally obtained FBI files on adversaries, and used them to smear them, continues to this day. Strangely, although Mrs. Clinton is the principal defendant, and although there is sworn testimony, obtained during earlier discovery that Mrs. Clinton was the mastermind of this illegal scheme, the Court has never granted Plaintiffs requests to depose her — perhaps fearing a political backlash in the scandal ridden and "politically correct" cesspool known as Washington, D.C. But now that Mrs. Clinton has moved to try to get out of the case — undoubtedly so it does not hang over her head during her years as Secretary of State — it is mandatory that she be deposed before the Court can even consider her motion to be let out of the case. Indeed, even her husband, Bill Clinton, who was president at the time, had to be deposed in the Paula Jones case. Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, ranks lower than a U.S. president and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Jones case that even a president is subject to deposition for his illegal acts.
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/hillary-clinton-tries-to-escape-from-on-going-filegate-case
Breitbart has an even better article that talks about Filegate, Email-Gate1 and Email-Gate2 (Benghazi):
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/04/hillary-clintons-long-history-of-hiding-documents/
Nancy Cohen's mindset is more than annoying. It's dangerous. Worse still, undermining this woman's credibility entirely, is that the premise of that article is just plain stupid.
Put on your hiring hat. If you are looking for a candidate for a job, would you hire someone just because she's a woman? Well, I can think of a few cases - swimsuit model, bra model, haute couture evening gown model - but Hilliary Clinton or any of the women candidates running for office aren't applying for any of those. They are applying for jobs that will give them some control over our lives.
She's already proved, through the aiding, abetting and enabling of her husband's proclivity to disrespect women by sexually assaulting them that she doesn't give a rip about women or their issues. Through Filegate, she has shown that she is perfectly happy to sit down with records the federal government keeps on citizens. Those were FBI records, but what if it happened to be your IRS filing records? Or what about your Obamacare records? They're all right there, at the government's fingertips.
That is why I want someone I can trust to do the right thing in that office.
Now I don't know about Nancy Cohen, but I don't store my brain inside my nether regions. I also have the capacity to analyze and think independently. If I thought Hilliary Clinton had one speck of anything worthwhile I'd consider her for this job. But she doesn't and I don't, so I won't.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Thursday, April 7, 2016
I Knew Yesterday's Post Would Strike a Nerve
I may have joined Donald Trump as a serial insulter because of yesterday's post, but I stand by my position.
Two people, both acquaintances from another website whom I like and admire through what I've learned of them there, say Trump is a misogynist. I've said before that he's not, and I still don't believe that he is. Particularly after doing research for this post.
According to Merriam-Webster, misogyny is the 'hatred of women'. Just Googling the term comes back with 'a person who dislikes, despises or is strongly prejudiced against women'.
So that's the baseline. If we believe the misogynist label, Donald Trump either outright hates women, or he dislikes, despises and/or is strongly prejudiced against women - all women. Not one, not two or this one or that one or the other.
I don't buy that. I think he is an equal opportunity insulter without the sense God gave a chicken when it comes to shutting up.
If Donald Trump is a misogynist, why has he been married three times, to three women who are unarguably better looking than most and who are, independent of their marriage to him, successful?
If he hates women, why did he appoint Ivana to several high-profile positions within the Trump Organization? She was the Vice President of Interior Design and had a hand in the design of Trump Tower. In 1990, she was named Hotelier of the Year when she was president of Trump's Plaza Hotel in New York. This is hardly the profile of a weak woman, or one overrun by her husband.
And, if he 'hates' women, why did he put her in a position of apparent power? Why not show his disrespect by making her some low-level worker bee, or keep her out of his company altogether?
Marla Maples was a model who, after her divorce from The Donald, became an actress in movies and on television. She's had a radio talk show. I don't think a weak woman could be successful in the shark tanks of talk radio and Hollywood.
Melania certainly had plenty of opportunity for a successful life without Trump. She has a degree in design and architecture from University of Ljubljana, Yugoslavia. She was a successful model. She currently runs two businesses - one for jewelry sold on QVC and another for a high-end moisturizer. This is not your typical abused woman hated by her husband. She is successful in her own right and has plenty of opportunity to stand on her own two feet if things were ugly in her marriage.
Googling 'Donald and Melania Trump news' doesn't come up with lurid headlines about troubles or fights or splits or gossip. They appear to be a solid couple and the pictures of them together don't show any sign of discord. In fact, if you look at his expression in those pictures where he's looking at her, they're almost prideful. They're certainly admiring.
He's got his daughter Ivanka out there stumping for him and, according to some I've listened to on the chattering shows, she is one of his strongest advisers. Another woman whom he respects.
But those are family - of course he treats them well. Yet - if we go back to the original basis for the label, it's a universal behavior. He (supposedly) dislikes women - all inclusive. I hold that he doesn't.
Take a minute and read this article from last November's Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-a-champion-of-women-his-female-employees-think-so/2015/11/23/7eafac80-88da-11e5-9a07-453018f9a0ec_story.html
Or this, from Yahoo:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/whats-up-with-donald-trump-and-the-women-not-090043983.html
In this, the position I take is confirmed: Donald Trump is a serial insulter. He is even-handed in his opinions - men and women - with just two tags for people: 'Great' or 'Loser' and once on the list it's hard to get off.
Based on reading both of these articles and a few others, he is superficial in his judgement of people - appearance matters. That does not make him a misogynist, though. It just proves he is shallow. Just like most people who make snap judgements based on appearance rather than character.
After all, if you climb aboard a bus or train or a shared transport of any kind, or are even at an airport terminal waiting for a flight and you have the choice between taking the seat next to someone good looking and well groomed or someone who is, at best, lazy about their appearance, which seat will you choose?
That's a superficial judgement. For all you know that sharp well-dressed person is a perv and the lazy slob is another Einstein. Looking at these two guys in the pictures above, and given the choice of taking the empty seat, guess which I would pick. And, I suspect you'd do the same.
We all make judgements about other people's appearance. We just have the sense to keep our opinions to ourselves.
Oh, and those two guys there? One is a serial killer and the other is a multi-billionaire - Ted Bundy and Mark Cuban, respectively.
I liken Trump's behavior to Tourette's syndrome. That is a condition where a person has an inexplicable, unfortunate and uncontrollable urge to spew whatever hits their tongue no matter where they are or who they are with. Tourette's is also linked to ADHD - a tendency toward impulsive behavior. I don't believe that Trump has either of these things overtly or clinically, but based on observation - the tendency to jump from topic to topic to topic and back again, to say precisely what's front and present in his awareness, perhaps there's a touch there.
Another possibility might be found in research done by the Max Planck Institute on the psychology of speech.
It has been studied and proved that we start to speak before we decide precisely what we're going to say. Unlike in writing when we at least have the opportunity to go back and edit before releasing our wisdom into the world, speech is immediate and difficult to correct because there is a delay between our starting a sentence and what we end up deciding to say.
Perhaps Trump's linkages are weaker than most or maybe they're quicker. Instead of having time to apply the filter the majority of us use, the synapses are so fast that the words escape before his brain has a chance to intervene.
Does this excuse what he says? No. But it is one explanation and I still say that the 'misogynist' label is misapplied when it's applied to Trump. Not because I'm stubborn, but because I judge people on what I see and weigh them on what I hear. He's not perfect, not by a long stretch, but I recognize the good things about him. Based on what I've read about this particular person, I'm comfortable defending my support of him.
Does this proclivity to speak what's on his mind disqualify him from public office? I don't think so. I would much rather have someone who speaks what he thinks, even if I don't like hearing it, than have yet another snake oil salesman who thinks and rehearses every single thing and makes promises he has no intention of keeping.
In my opinion all of the other candidates in this horse race are just another snake oil salesman, aka Professional Politician.
Clinton has been in politics almost all of her adult life - from when Billy-Jeff was governor of Arkansas in the 1980s to today.
Sanders is a career politician who has been around Washington for decades, getting started as a mayor in Vermont back in the 1970's.
Cruz is another career politician - first working at the Federal Trade Commission for four years (1999 - 2003), serving as an advisor to Bush II during his campaign, working as Solicitor General of Texas and, more recently became a Senator.
None of these choices will change anything in Washington - so I would rather have a Tourette-tainted equal opportunity serial insulter in the Oval Office who might actually have the stones to get something done. At the very least it'll shake things up an awful lot.
So, with that out of the way, I hope your day is wonderful.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Two people, both acquaintances from another website whom I like and admire through what I've learned of them there, say Trump is a misogynist. I've said before that he's not, and I still don't believe that he is. Particularly after doing research for this post.
According to Merriam-Webster, misogyny is the 'hatred of women'. Just Googling the term comes back with 'a person who dislikes, despises or is strongly prejudiced against women'.
So that's the baseline. If we believe the misogynist label, Donald Trump either outright hates women, or he dislikes, despises and/or is strongly prejudiced against women - all women. Not one, not two or this one or that one or the other.
I don't buy that. I think he is an equal opportunity insulter without the sense God gave a chicken when it comes to shutting up.
If Donald Trump is a misogynist, why has he been married three times, to three women who are unarguably better looking than most and who are, independent of their marriage to him, successful?
 |
| Ivana Trump, Marla Maples, Melania Trump |
And, if he 'hates' women, why did he put her in a position of apparent power? Why not show his disrespect by making her some low-level worker bee, or keep her out of his company altogether?
Marla Maples was a model who, after her divorce from The Donald, became an actress in movies and on television. She's had a radio talk show. I don't think a weak woman could be successful in the shark tanks of talk radio and Hollywood.
Melania certainly had plenty of opportunity for a successful life without Trump. She has a degree in design and architecture from University of Ljubljana, Yugoslavia. She was a successful model. She currently runs two businesses - one for jewelry sold on QVC and another for a high-end moisturizer. This is not your typical abused woman hated by her husband. She is successful in her own right and has plenty of opportunity to stand on her own two feet if things were ugly in her marriage.
Googling 'Donald and Melania Trump news' doesn't come up with lurid headlines about troubles or fights or splits or gossip. They appear to be a solid couple and the pictures of them together don't show any sign of discord. In fact, if you look at his expression in those pictures where he's looking at her, they're almost prideful. They're certainly admiring.
He's got his daughter Ivanka out there stumping for him and, according to some I've listened to on the chattering shows, she is one of his strongest advisers. Another woman whom he respects.
But those are family - of course he treats them well. Yet - if we go back to the original basis for the label, it's a universal behavior. He (supposedly) dislikes women - all inclusive. I hold that he doesn't.
Take a minute and read this article from last November's Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-a-champion-of-women-his-female-employees-think-so/2015/11/23/7eafac80-88da-11e5-9a07-453018f9a0ec_story.html
Or this, from Yahoo:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/whats-up-with-donald-trump-and-the-women-not-090043983.html
In this, the position I take is confirmed: Donald Trump is a serial insulter. He is even-handed in his opinions - men and women - with just two tags for people: 'Great' or 'Loser' and once on the list it's hard to get off.
Based on reading both of these articles and a few others, he is superficial in his judgement of people - appearance matters. That does not make him a misogynist, though. It just proves he is shallow. Just like most people who make snap judgements based on appearance rather than character.
After all, if you climb aboard a bus or train or a shared transport of any kind, or are even at an airport terminal waiting for a flight and you have the choice between taking the seat next to someone good looking and well groomed or someone who is, at best, lazy about their appearance, which seat will you choose?
That's a superficial judgement. For all you know that sharp well-dressed person is a perv and the lazy slob is another Einstein. Looking at these two guys in the pictures above, and given the choice of taking the empty seat, guess which I would pick. And, I suspect you'd do the same.
We all make judgements about other people's appearance. We just have the sense to keep our opinions to ourselves.
Oh, and those two guys there? One is a serial killer and the other is a multi-billionaire - Ted Bundy and Mark Cuban, respectively.
I liken Trump's behavior to Tourette's syndrome. That is a condition where a person has an inexplicable, unfortunate and uncontrollable urge to spew whatever hits their tongue no matter where they are or who they are with. Tourette's is also linked to ADHD - a tendency toward impulsive behavior. I don't believe that Trump has either of these things overtly or clinically, but based on observation - the tendency to jump from topic to topic to topic and back again, to say precisely what's front and present in his awareness, perhaps there's a touch there.
Another possibility might be found in research done by the Max Planck Institute on the psychology of speech.
It has been studied and proved that we start to speak before we decide precisely what we're going to say. Unlike in writing when we at least have the opportunity to go back and edit before releasing our wisdom into the world, speech is immediate and difficult to correct because there is a delay between our starting a sentence and what we end up deciding to say.
Perhaps Trump's linkages are weaker than most or maybe they're quicker. Instead of having time to apply the filter the majority of us use, the synapses are so fast that the words escape before his brain has a chance to intervene.
Does this excuse what he says? No. But it is one explanation and I still say that the 'misogynist' label is misapplied when it's applied to Trump. Not because I'm stubborn, but because I judge people on what I see and weigh them on what I hear. He's not perfect, not by a long stretch, but I recognize the good things about him. Based on what I've read about this particular person, I'm comfortable defending my support of him.
Does this proclivity to speak what's on his mind disqualify him from public office? I don't think so. I would much rather have someone who speaks what he thinks, even if I don't like hearing it, than have yet another snake oil salesman who thinks and rehearses every single thing and makes promises he has no intention of keeping.
In my opinion all of the other candidates in this horse race are just another snake oil salesman, aka Professional Politician.
Clinton has been in politics almost all of her adult life - from when Billy-Jeff was governor of Arkansas in the 1980s to today.
Sanders is a career politician who has been around Washington for decades, getting started as a mayor in Vermont back in the 1970's.
Cruz is another career politician - first working at the Federal Trade Commission for four years (1999 - 2003), serving as an advisor to Bush II during his campaign, working as Solicitor General of Texas and, more recently became a Senator.
None of these choices will change anything in Washington - so I would rather have a Tourette-tainted equal opportunity serial insulter in the Oval Office who might actually have the stones to get something done. At the very least it'll shake things up an awful lot.
So, with that out of the way, I hope your day is wonderful.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)