By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Top U.S. homeland security aide Corey Lewandowski entered the cockpit of a government jet uninvited during a flight last year, and later fired a pilot over a misplaced blanket. Lewandowski reportedly entered the cockpit before the plane reached 10,000 feet, a move that could violate aviation safety guidelines. The pilot was subsequently fired but later reinstated.
Read the original article here
The revelation that Corey Lewandowski entered the cockpit during a flight and subsequently ordered the firing of a pilot over a missing blanket, as reported by Reuters, paints a concerning picture of entitlement and a disturbing disregard for established protocols. This incident, unfolding under the purview of Kristi Noem, raises immediate questions about judgment, authority, and the very nature of professional conduct in positions of influence. The act of entering a sterile cockpit during flight is a serious breach of security, a rule designed to ensure the safety of everyone on board. To do so, not for any emergent safety concern, but apparently to intervene in a dispute over a personal item, is perplexing and suggests a profound lack of understanding or an outright dismissal of aviation regulations.
The notion that a pilot would be fired over a missing blanket is, to put it mildly, astonishingly petty and absurd. It speaks volumes about the individual making such a demand and the environment that permits it. The pilot’s responsibility is to fly the aircraft safely and efficiently, not to act as a personal valet for passengers’ belongings. This incident implies a perception of government employees as mere servants to those in power, a viewpoint that undermines the dedication and professionalism of individuals serving in public capacities. The ensuing confusion and disbelief expressed by many mirror the general sentiment that this scenario deviates wildly from expected behavior.
Further compounding the strangeness of the situation is the volunteer status of Lewandowski, as suggested, and his apparent authority to direct the firing of a trained Coast Guard pilot. This juxtaposition of a volunteer role with such decisive, and seemingly unwarranted, power over a uniformed officer is a significant red flag. It calls into question the chains of command and the legitimacy of his influence in such critical situations. The implied connection through his relationship with Noem adds another layer of speculation about the motivations behind his actions, suggesting that personal relationships might be overriding professional judgment and established procedures.
The speculation that the “blanket” might have been a euphemism for something more illicit, like drugs, speaks to the surreal nature of the reported events. While this is purely conjecture, the sheer implausibility of a pilot being fired over a mere blanket opens the door to such theories. Regardless of the true nature of the object, the act of firing a pilot under these circumstances remains deeply problematic and indicative of an individual operating with an inflated sense of personal importance. The emotional responses, often associated with political affiliations, highlight a broader societal concern about how individuals in positions of power are behaving and the standards by which they are held accountable.
The reinstatement of the pilot by Coast Guard leadership, once they realized his essential role in returning them, indicates that cooler heads eventually prevailed. However, the fact that it took intervention from higher authorities to correct such a bizarre decision underscores the flawed judgment displayed during the incident. One can only hope that the pilot was adequately compensated for the distress and potential career disruption caused by this unprofessional episode. The idea of demanding a significantly higher salary to participate in such a “circus” is a relatable sentiment, reflecting the desire for fair compensation when subjected to such volatile and undignified circumstances.
The repeated mention of Lewandowski’s past legal troubles, including battery charges and accusations of assault, serves to contextualize this incident within a pattern of alleged misconduct. These prior events, if accurate, suggest a predisposition towards aggressive and inappropriate behavior, which would explain his actions on the flight. The comparison to “entitled douchebag doing entitled douchebag things” captures the essence of this perception, framing his actions as those of someone who believes themselves to be above reproach and entitled to act without consequence.
The potential violation of sterile cockpit rules by Lewandowski is a serious concern for aviation safety regulators like the FAA. This breach, coupled with the firing of a pilot, could invite scrutiny and potential investigations. The recurring theme of the “special blanket” and the questions surrounding its significance, including the suggestive and crude theories about its contents, illustrate the public’s fascination and, in this case, disgust with the bizarre details of the incident. The implication of illicit activity or personal indiscretions associated with the blanket only adds to the public’s suspicion and concern about the individuals involved.
The notion of a “special blanket” being the catalyst for such an extreme reaction hints at something beyond a simple forgotten item. The crude speculation about it being used for intimate encounters and the subsequent panic about its discovery speaks to a level of immaturity and recklessness that is deeply concerning for public officials. The idea of Noem requesting a plane with a bed further fuels these speculations, suggesting a desire for increased privacy and comfort for personal activities during travel. This focus on personal comforts and alleged illicit activities, rather than public service, is a stark contrast to the expectations of those in leadership roles.
The questioning of Lewandowski’s authority to fire a pilot, especially a highly qualified one, is a valid and central point of contention. His lack of official affiliation with certain agencies, coupled with his perceived influence through personal relationships, creates a murky and potentially illegal chain of command. The calls for impeachment and removal of officials involved highlight a desire for accountability and a rejection of this kind of behavior in government. The comparison of the pilot’s competence to that of Noem herself further emphasizes the public’s dissatisfaction with the current leadership.
The idea that the pilot might have faced further repercussions, even being metaphorically compared to Noem’s discarded puppies, underscores the perceived ruthlessness and lack of empathy displayed by those in power. The suggestion that the pilot should have simply turned the plane around and left them stranded speaks to the widespread frustration and desire for a stronger stance against such unprofessional conduct. The phrase “Fly the plane yourself, dickhead” encapsulates the raw anger and disbelief many feel towards Lewandowski’s actions.
The persistent questioning of what was so “important” about the blanket, and the widespread belief that it was a cover for something else, highlights the public’s distrust and suspicion. The theories about intimate encounters under the blanket, and the subsequent panic, reveal a cynicism about the motivations of public officials when they exhibit such bizarre behavior. The idea that this incident is a reflection of a broader pattern of fraud, waste, and abuse within the government further solidifies the public’s disillusionment.
The assertion that Lewandowski micromanages government agencies despite no official role, deriving his authority from a personal relationship, is a critical accusation that points to a deep-seated problem of cronyism and corruption. This reliance on personal connections rather than merit or established authority is corrosive to effective governance. The comparison to “trash ass, deplorable ass people” reflects the visceral reaction many have to such perceived moral and professional failings. The confusion about the pilot’s responsibility for a passenger’s blanket underscores the fundamental disconnect between the actions taken and any reasonable expectation of duty. The fact that entering a cockpit during flight is a felony post-9/11 adds another layer of illegality to the already concerning events.