Former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe is a treasonous weasel among treasonous weasels!

Yes…, former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe is a treasonous weasel, and so are all of the rest of his partners in crime from Obama’s DOJ and Obama’s FBI.

All of these vermin in this “swampy” nest of rats should be in jail in my opinion, and they still may end up there.

Catherine Herridge, Chief Intelligence Correspondent for Fox News, reported that, “Former FBI acting Director McCabe says the DOJ discussed removing President Trump under the 25th Amendment.”

Wait…, say what?!

“THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DISCUSSED REMOVING NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM OFFICE!”

And no one in the “biased, liberal, fake news media” feels this is worth reporting at all.

If you regularly watch NBC, ABC, MSNBC or CNN you would not be aware of any of this because they all have chosen to ignore it.  Propaganda by omission.

Now take a minute to think about the reporting that would have resulted if the same type of efforts had been directed at former President Obama after he was duly elected.

That is what we call the “biased, liberal, fake news media.”

Michael Goodwin, of the New York Post, added, “McCabe, you see, has reminded us once again that there really is a powerful deep state, and that there has not been a full accounting of rampant FBI misconduct during the presidential campaign of 2016.”

“There is also still too much we don’t know about the role top aides to then-President Barack Obama and higher-ups in the Justice Department played in spying on the Trump campaign and leaks of classified information for partisan purposes.”

“In short, what is arguably the greatest scandal in the history of America remains mostly hidden from the public.  That shroud of secrecy piles one scandal on top of another.”

This was undoubtedly an unprecedented plot to swing an election and later to remove the duly-elected president.

Andy “poor little angel” McCabe is talking because he’s peddling a book and, just like “Leakin’ and Lyin’” James Comey before him.

McCabe then used an interview with CBS’ “Sixty Minutes” to offer up more details of a discussion within the FBI and the DOJ to use the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.

According to Michael Goodwin, “McCabe said that the effort took shape immediately after Trump fired Comey in May 2017 and that numerous people were involved, including Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.  Rosenstein, through an aide, denied the account.”

So now we one lying “swamp rat” calling another lying “swamp rat” a liar.

Beautiful.

All of these treasonous rats try to convince us that they were acting in the best interests of our country.  Ya…, that’s what all traitors say.  In actuality, they were acting in their own best interests.

Goodwin continues by saying, “Meanwhile, we do know that Comey and his dirty crew used the unverified Christopher Steele dossier, which was funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, to get a secret court warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.  And FBI text messages, along with congressional testimony, confirm that the same agents probing Trump were simultaneously involved in the Clinton e-mail investigation and decided to go easy on her because they thought she would be their next boss.  Recall that Peter Strzok, the top agent in both cases, called the Trump probe an “insurance policy” in the event he won.”

Please tell me…, how are any of these slimy, treasonous, conspirators not in jail, still walking around, and selling books on top of it all?

Alan Dershowitz is an accredited and well-respected American lawyer and academic.  He is a scholar of United States Constitutional law and criminal law, and a noted civil libertarian. Most of his career has been at Harvard Law School where, in 1967, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor of law in its history.  He retired from Harvard in 2013, and subsequently became a regular CNN and Fox News contributor and political and legal analyst.

Dershowitz, giving his take on McCabe’s descriptions of Justice Department meetings where he said officials discussed ousting the president, said, “If [McCabe’s comments are] true, it is clearly an attempt at a coup d’état,” Dershowitz said.

“Evoking the 25th Amendment,” Dershowitz added, “would be a fundamental misuse of its original purpose.  It was originally about Woodrow Wilson having a stroke.  It’s about a president being shot and not being able to perform his office.”

So what exactly is in the 25th Amendment that is being referred to?

Let’s take a look.

Sections 3 and 4 from the 25th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America says:

3: Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

4: Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

The 25th Amendment was added to the Constitution in February of 1967.

Dershowitz added that, “Any justice official who discussed the 25th Amendment in the context of ousting the president has committed a grievous offense against the Constitution,” and that “using the 25th Amendment to circumvent the impeachment process or an election, is a despicable act of unconstitutional power grabbing.”

Mr. Dershowitz is definitely not mincing words here.

Getting back to the “Sixty Minutes” interview, “These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel,” Scott Pelley, the ’60 Minutes’ host said. “And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the president.” He [McCabe] said people involved were ‘counting noses’ and considering who might agree to the idea [of trying to remove The President].

“I was speaking to the man who had just run for the presidency and won the election for the presidency and who might have done so with the aid of the government of Russia, our most formidable adversary on the world stage. And that was something that troubled me greatly,” McCabe said in one excerpt.

Excuse me Mr. McCabe, but that is just an out and out lie.

You were entirely aware that the “Russian collusion” angle had been completely fabricated, and that was not what “troubled you greatly.”

What “troubled you greatly,” Mr. McCabe, was that President Trump and his administration might actually shine some light on all of the unethical, illegal, and treasonous activities that you and your “swampy” friends had performed and had become accustomed to getting away with.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! – Sir Walter Scott

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

andrew-mccabe-to-the-usa-this-traitor-better-29810123

President Trump has officially declared the US-Mexico border security crisis a national emergency. Is it?

“We’re going to confront the national security crisis on our southern border…, one way or the other.  We have to do it,” President Trump said in the Rose Garden.

Speaker Pelosi has directly contradicted President Trump by claiming, “There is no crisis on our southern border,” and that, “President Trump has manufactured this crisis.”

Ok…, well…, let’s look at the facts.  Let’s look at the numbers.

According to “Investor’s Business Daily:”

“[Regarding] illegal immigration: Democrats and the mainstream press accuse President Donald Trump of manufacturing a crisis at the border. The numbers tell another story.”

“NPR’s ‘fact check,’ like countless others, dismissed [President] Trump’s claim as false because ‘illegal border crossings in the most recent fiscal year (ending in September 2018) were actually lower than in either 2016 or 2014.”

“What they aren’t telling you is border patrol agents apprehended more than 100,000 people trying to enter the country illegally in just October and November of last year. Or that that number is way up from the same two months the year before.”

“Nor do they mention that last year, the border patrol apprehended more than half a million people trying to get into the country illegally. And that number, too, is up from the year before.”

“Trump’s critics certainly don’t bother to mention that those figures only count illegals the border patrol caught.  It does not count the ones who eluded border patrol agents and got into the country.”

 

The Department of Homeland Security claims that about 20% of illegal border crossers make it into the country.  Other studies, however, say border agents fail to apprehend as many as 50% of illegal crossers.

Is that not a crisis at the border?

Wait…, there’s more.

“Pelosi and company also don’t bother to mention the fact that there are already between 12 million and 22 million illegals, depending on which study you use, in the country today already.”

I would venture to say there are probably even more that 22 million in the country.

Let’s put those numbers in perspective.

“At the high end, it means that the illegal population in the U.S. is larger than the entire population of countries like Syria, Chile, the Netherlands and Ecuador. Even if the number is just 12 million, that’s still more than the entire population of Sweden, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Ireland and New Zealand.

Isn’t having millions and millions in the country illegally, with thousands joining them every day, not a crisis at the border?

But wait…, there’s more.

“Critics also complain that Trump overstated the risk of illegal immigrants committing crimes. They all point to a report from the Cato Institute, a pro-immigration libertarian think tank. Cato did a statistical analysis of census data and concluded that incarceration rates for Hispanic illegals were slightly lower than those of the native-born.”

Oh goody!

“But the Center for Immigration Studies looked at federal crime statistics [as well].  It found that noncitizens accounted for more than 20% of federal convictions, even though they make up just 8.4% of the population.”

The state of Texas alone “Has been monitoring crimes committed by illegals.  It reports that from 2011 to 2018, it booked 186,000 illegal aliens.  Police charged them with a total of 292,000 crimes.  Those included 539 murders, 32,000 assaults, 3,426 sexual assaults, and almost 3,000 weapons charges.”

Maybe we should talk to the victims of those 539 murders, 32,000 assaults, 3,426 sexual assaults (in Texas alone), and see if they think there is a crisis at our southern border.

And all of this does not even take into account the smuggling of illegal drugs.  According to the “VeryWellmind” website, “The estimated cost of drug abuse in the United States, including illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, is more than $820 billion a year and growing. Substance abuse in the U.S. costs society in increased healthcare costs, crime, and lost productivity.”

According to The National Institute on Drug abuse, “More than 70,200 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017.”

Unquestionably, the overwhelming majority of dangerous illegal drugs pours through our southern border.

In 2018 alone, border agents seized 5,000 pounds of heroin, 60,000 pounds of cocaine, 80,000 pounds of meth, and 1,600 pounds of fentanyl.  And that’s what they caught.  How much made it over the border?

Maybe we should talk to the families of the “more than 70,200 Americans [who] died from drug overdoses in 2017,” all of those people who have had their lives ruined by illegal drugs, and all of their families, and see if they think there is a crisis at our southern border.

Then we have the whole issue of human trafficers, who smuggle women and children into our country for sex and as slaves.

So, after looking at the numbers, is there a national crisis at our southern border?

I believe the only answer we can responsibly give is “yes.”

Others, of course, put their politics before the safety of the American people.

“This is plainly a power grab by a disappointed President, who has gone outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve in the constitutional legislative process,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. “The President’s actions clearly violate the Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, which our Founders enshrined in the Constitution.”

They vowed Congress would “defend our constitutional authorities in the Congress, in the Courts, and in the public, using every remedy available.”

“The President’s declaration of a national emergency would be an abuse of his constitutional oath and an affront to the separation of powers. Congress has the exclusive power of the purse, and the Constitution specifically prohibits the President from spending money that has not been appropriated. … This is a gross abuse of power that cannot be tolerated,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a statement.

First of all, Mr. Nadler, all of the money that President Trump is talking about using has been “appropriated.”

And on a related note…, when former President Obama sent over $150 BILLION (in cash by the way) to Iran as part of the failed Iran Nuclear Deal, where exactly was that money “appropriated?”  Just sayin’.

So…, what gives President Trump “the right” to declare a national emergency anyway?

The National Emergencies Act (NEA) authorizes the president to declare a “national emergency.”  This legislation was signed into law by President Gerald Ford on September 14, 1976

A declaration under NEA triggers emergency authorities contained in other federal statutes. Past NEA declarations have addressed, among other things, the imposition of export controls and limitations on transactions and property from specified nations.  A national emergency was declared in 2001 after the September 11th terrorist attacks and has been renewed every year since then.

58 national emergencies have been declared since the National Emergency Act of 1976 was signed into law.

31 have been annually renewed and are currently still in effect.

Here’s a list of the presidents who declared national emergencies.

President Jimmy Carter:

Nov. 14, 1979 (still in effect): A national emergency in response to the Iran hostage crisis, which froze Iran’s assets in the United States.

President Ronald Reagan:

April 17, 1980: Further Prohibitions on Transactions with Iran, never terminated or continued;

Oct. 14, 1983: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked in 1983.

March 30, 1984: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked in 1985.

May 1, 1985: Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving Nicaragua, revoked in 1990.

Sept. 9, 1985: Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving South Africa (in response to apartheid), revoked 1991.

Jan. 17, 1986: Prohibiting Trade and Certain Transactions Involving Libya, revoked 2004.

April 8, 1988: Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Panama, revoked 1990.

President George H.W. Bush:

August 2, 1990: Blocking Iraqi Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Iraq, revoked 2004.

Sept. 30, 1990: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked 1993.

Nov. 16, 1990: Chemical and Biological Weapons Proliferation, revoked 1994.

Oct. 4, 1991: Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Haiti, revoked 1994.

May 30, 1992: Blocking “Yugoslav Government” Property and Property of the Governments of Serbia and Montenegro, revoked 2003.

President Bill Clinton:

Sept. 26, 1993: Prohibiting Certain Transactions Involving UNITA (a political party in Angola), revoked 2003.

Sept. 30, 1993: Measures to Restrict the Participation by United States Persons in Weapons Proliferation Activities, revoked 1994.

June 30, 1994: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked 1994.

Aug. 19, 1994: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked 2001.

Sept. 29, 1994: Measures to Restrict the Participation by United States Persons in Weapons Proliferation Activities, revoked 1994.

Oct. 25, 1994: Blocking Property and Additional Measures with Respect to the Bosnian Serb- Controlled Areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, revoked 2003.

Nov. 14, 1994 (still in effect): Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, continued in November 2018.

Jan. 23, 1995 (still in effect): Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process, continued in January 2018.

March 15, 1995 (still in effect): Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources, continued in March 2018 and expanded in August 2018.

Oct. 21, 1995 (still in effect): Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers, continued in October 2018.

March 1, 1996 (still in effect): Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba, modified by President Obama in 2016 and again by President Trump in February 2018.

May 22, 1997: Prohibiting New Investment in Burma, terminated in October 2016.

Nov. 3, 1997 (still in effect): Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan, continued in October 2018.

June 9, 1998: Blocking Property of the Governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the Republic of Serbia, and the Republic of Montenegro, and Prohibiting New Investment in the Republic of Serbia in Response to the Situation in Kosovo, revoked in 2003.

July 4, 1999: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with the Taliban, revoked in 2002.

June 21, 2000: Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, expired 2012.

Jan. 18, 2001: Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, revoked in 2004.

President George W. Bush:

June 26, 2001 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans, continued in June 2018.

Aug. 17, 2001 (still in effect): Continuation of Export Control Regulations, continued August 2018.

Sept. 14, 2001 (still in effect): Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks, continued in September 2018.

Sept. 23, 2001 (still in effect): Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism, continued in September 2017.

March 6, 2003 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe, continued in March 2018.

May 22, 2003 (still in effect): Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest, continued in May 2018.

May 11, 2004 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria, continued in May 2018.

July 22, 2004: Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Importation of Certain Goods from Liberia, revoked in November 2015.

Feb. 7, 2006: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Côte d’Ivoire, terminated in September 2016.

June 16, 2006 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus, continued in June 2018.

Oct. 27, 2006 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, continued in October 2018;

Aug. 1, 2007 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions, continued in July 2018.

June 26, 2008 (still in effect): Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea and North Korean Nationals, continued in October 2018.

President Barack Obama:

Oct. 23, 2009: Declaration of a National Emergency with Respect to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic, was never terminated or continued.

April 12, 2010 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia, continued in 2018.

Feb. 25, 2011 (still in effect): Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya, continued in February 2018.

July 24, 2011 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations, continued in July 2018.

May 16, 2012 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen, continued in May 2012.

June 25, 2012: Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, revoked in 2015.

March 6, 2014 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, continued in March 2018.

April 3, 2014 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons with Respect to South Sudan, continued in March 2018.

May 12, 2014 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic, continued in May 2018.

March 8, 2015 (still in effect): Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela, continued in March 2018.

April 1, 2015 (still in effect): Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities, continued in March 2018.

Nov. 22, 2015 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi, continued in November 2018.

President Donald Trump:

Dec. 20, 2017: Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption.

Sept. 12, 2018: Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election.

Nov. 27, 2018: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua.

Based on everything I’ve laid out here, President Trump’s declaring a national emergency IS NOT “plainly a power grab.”

This President HAS NOT “gone outside the bounds of the law.”

The President’s actions DO NOT “clearly violate the Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, which our Founders enshrined in the Constitution.”

The President’s declaration of a national emergency IS NOT “an abuse of his constitutional oath and an affront to the separation of powers.”

And, this IS NOT “a gross abuse of power that cannot be tolerated.”

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

trump national emergency

“There was NO Russian collusion by President Trump,” per the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee.

The conclusion of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee is there is no evidence, whatsoever, that the Trump campaign conspired in any way with the government of Vladimir Putin during the last presidential election.

Let’s repeat that for some of our slower liberal leaning friends.

The conclusion of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee is there is no evidence, whatsoever, that the Trump campaign conspired in any way with the government of Vladimir Putin during the last presidential election.

Is that clear enough for all of you democrat sheep who think wishful thinking is a valid reason to impeach a president?

To many of us this finding is no surprise at all.

To others it is a complete surprise, based on how they were led along by the “biased, liberal, fake news media” and “the swamp” in general.

The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee spent two years investigating the question of Russian collusion and our President.  Of course, hundreds of interviews, reams of classified documents, untold millions in taxpayer dollars.  “No collusion at all.” That is what we are hearing that they have found.

Wait, I don’t get it.  Why were these senators wasting time on this while a special investigator (Robert Mueller) and his team were already tasked with investigating the same thing?

I think I would almost have to call the whole situation investigative harassment of a sitting president.

Let’s keep in mind that the whole investigation of Russian collusion was launched based on false pretenses provided by the discredited Steele dossier.

russian hoax

It’s easy to get sucked into this whole incestuous mess, trying to assess it logically, when in truth we have to understand that the forces pushing for the investigation knew full well that there wasn’t any Russian collusion by President Trump from the very beginning.  It was all just a distraction from the real collusion conducted by the democrats, the Obama administration, President Obama and Hillary Clinton.  It was also an attempt side track President Trump and discredit his election.

Tucker Carlson of Fox News agrees and points to some of our liberal democrat friends who have tried desperately to keep this hoax alive.

ADAM SCHIFF: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, CALIFORNIA: “I think there is plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight.”

MAXINE WATERS, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, CALIFORNIA:  “Trump has the Kremlin clan surrounding him. There is more to be learned about it. I believe there has been collusion.”

JOHN PODESTA, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF AND CLINTON APOLOGIST: “It is starting to smell more and more like collusion.”

NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CALIFORNIA:  “We saw cold, hard evidence of the Trump campaign and, indeed, the Trump family eagerly intending to collude, possibly with Russia.”  “Smells like collusion.”…”Plenty of evidence of collusion.” “Hard evidence of collusion.”

Can you see any kind of pattern forming here regarding The People’s Republic of California?

Carlson added, “In the end, it was all fake. And they knew that, they knew it wasn’t real.  They were lying from the very first day.  Only their remarkable aggression, their willingness to say literally anything no matter how outrageous or slanderous or vile, kept the rest of us from catching on to what they were doing.”

“If the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is willing to call someone [The President] a traitor to this country, there’s gotta be some truth to it, right?  Actually, no, there wasn’t. It was always a hoax.  [Congressman] Adam Schiff is an unscrupulous charlatan; that is the real lesson here.  Don’t expect people like Schiff to apologize though or correct the record, much less repair the lives of the people they have destroyed.”

Here is Malcolm Nance of MSNBC explaining why the results of a two-year Senate investigation mean nothing.  People are guilty because we say they are guilty, and we must punish them regardless.

“Let me just say one thing. When Benedict Arnold gave the plans to West Point to Major Andre and they captured Major Andre, they do not have any real information linking those plans to Benedict Arnold, other than the fact that it was in his presence at one point during that day.  But everyone knew it was treason when they caught the man, and they hung him.  So at some point, there is going to be a bridge of data here that is going to be unassailable.”

“No one had any evidence, but everyone knew it was treason when they caught the man and they hung him.”

Tucker comments about this by saying, “That says it all.  Let’s repeat that, once again, slowly so you can write down those words and put them on your fridge as a memento of the terrifying mass hysteria we have all just lived through: ‘Everyone knew it was treason when they caught the man, and they hung him.’  That is our country now. That is what the Russia insanity has done to us. The country’s core problems don’t even rate as interesting anymore, either to legislators or to TV pundits who comment on legislators. The suicide rate just hit a 50-year high, did you know that?  We are in the middle of the worst drug epidemic in the history of America, including the one after the Civil War and the heroin epidemic of the ’70s and the crack epidemic of the ’80s, this is way worse, and it’s one of the reasons the life expectancy, in many parts of the country, is dropping.”

“This is starting to look like Boris Yeltsin’s Russia, and yet nobody in Washington even notices.  All Adam Schiff and the rest of the wild-eyed morons can think about is “Vladimir Putin,” “collusion,” “our hacked democracy” and all the other mindless slogans they have repeated long enough to half believe.”

“We’ve spent two years perpetuating a fraud, and they are still doing it. What is this? It is negligence on a stunning scale. It has nothing to do with Trump, it has everything to do with running this country, and they are not.”

“Historians will look back on this moment in amazement and in sadness…, [and wonder] why didn’t any responsible person in the media say anything about it?  Why did they collude in the charade?  What the hell happened to America?”

The answer, Tucker, is nothing “new” has really happened to “America,” regarding the “biased, liberal, fake news media,” “the swamp,” or our politicians.

What has happened, that is new, is that many of us are now paying attention and we’re refusing to let these slime balls get away this crap like they were used to in the past.

WINNING!

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

russian collusion

 

The President appealed to lawmakers in both parties to, “Rise above partisan politics and define victory as not winning for one party but winning for our country.”  My State of the Union address analysis: Part 2.

Liz Peek for Fox News reported that, “In a speech that was interrupted 102 times by applause, President Trump rocked the House, delivering remarks that were at times moving, funny, inspiring, feisty and visionary.”

I would have to totally agree with Ms. Peek here.  I was very impressed by The President’s tone, his overall presence, and his words.

“He appealed to lawmakers in both parties to rise above partisan politics and define victory as “not winning for one party but winning for our country.”

The President “Framed his speech as a celebration of two great occasions: the 75th anniversary of D-Day that liberated Europe [and saved the world’s civilization] from the Nazis and the 50th anniversary of America’s [Apollo 11] moon landing.  Heroes from both those historic undertakings were in the gallery, personifying the daring and selflessness that has characterized the United States throughout our history.”

He asked Democrats to partner with him in “choosing greatness” and to “keep freedom alive in our souls.”

“He exhorted Congress to ‘think of this very chamber, where lawmakers before you voted to end slavery, to build the railroads and the highways, to defeat fascism, to secure civil rights, to face down an evil empire.’”

The democrat side of the aisle honestly seemed petty and a bit foolish in comparison.

There was even a large group of democrat female representatives who wore white to represent something, or show some kind of unity.  They all characteristically chose to “thumb their noses” at President Trump’s accomplishments, and the country’s historic economic numbers.

Liz Peek added, “The Democrats also pouted as the president listed the economic gains made during his administration. They did not cheer when he said 5.3 million new jobs have been added, including 600,000 manufacturing jobs.”

“Nor did the Democrats cheer when the president cited the all-time low in African-American, Asian-American and Hispanic unemployment and the uptick in the incomes of blue-collar workers.”

“Do Democrats not approve of putting people to work?”

Do they not approve of 5 million people being lifted off of food stamps?

Do they not approve of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs being brought back to our country?

Do they not approve of us being self-sufficient, energy-wise, in the world?

Do they not approve of our NATO allies finally kicking in their fair share for their own defense spending?

It sure appeared that way, as democrats declined to applaud, and even smirked at the country’s good fortune.

President Trump did manage to break through their grumpiness, however, by pointing to the record number of women working in the United States today and the all-time high number of women in Congress. Even the “women in white” couldn’t help but celebrate themselves.

One of The President’s guests in the gallery was a survivor of Nazi concentration camps who was enjoying his 81st birthday.  It was enjoyable to see the entire House join in singing “Happy Birthday” to him.  That was certainly a first at a State of the Union address.

“In fairness, even while calling for a ‘new era of cooperation,’ [President] Trump threw some partisan zingers into the mix.  He singled out bills recently introduced in Virginia and passed in New York that allow for late-term abortions, and said he would ask Congress to pass legislation banning such procedures.”

“In addition, The President hammered home his determination to secure our ‘dangerous’ border, and the need for a wall.  To make the point, he introduced some family members of an elderly couple killed by an illegal immigrant.  Democrats were not pleased.”

How can you not be concerned with illegal drugs pouting over our southern border?

How can you not be concerned with thousands of young girls and children being taken advantage of by human trafficers at our southern border?

How can you not be concerned with gang members and other dangerous individuals coming across our southern border and committing crimes against and taking the lives of our citizens?

Just who do these democrat representatives represent exactly?

They didn’t account for themselves very well during the State of the Union address in my opinion.

The President added that “Great nations do not fight endless wars,” which is a statement no one can really argue with, as he is winding down our engagements in Afghanistan and Syria.

Liz Peek commented, “But for sure, the most contentious issue, and the one that continues to hang over the country, is immigration. Trump said no other issue better illustrates the divide between the working class and members of the wealthy [elite] political class, who hide behind walls [and gates and armed guards] while blue-collar workers suffer the lower wages, overburdened schools, [crime] and depleted safety nets that illegal immigration causes.”

“It will be interesting to see how Democrats answer that charge.”

“President Trump asked us all to ‘rekindle the bonds of love and loyalty and memory that link us together as citizens, as neighbors, as patriots.’”

“He vowed, as he has before, to put America’s interests first and, notably, promised that America will never be a socialist country.”

“Even Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer applauded that one.”

A CBS poll, conducted during and directly after The President’s speech, showed that 76% of viewers liked what they heard.

Since polling numbers regarding The President typically seem to skew low; that would translate into an 85%-90% positive approval rating of The President’s speech.

I would tend to agree with them.

In retrospect, I’m glad The President didn’t take my advice and hold his own State of the Union address away from The Capitol.  He definitely came away here as being the bigger person, the more reasonable person and the more responsible person.

Congratulations Mr. President.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

trump state of the union address 2019

Well, well, well, what have we here?  A petition to oust Nancy Pelosi surpasses 100,000 signatures?!

According to the WorldNetDaily (WND.com) website, “Amid all the talk about impeaching President Trump, more than 100,000 people have signed a White House “We the People” petition calling for the impeachment of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, accusing her of treason.”

Be still my little ole’ conservative heart!  But wait…, what’s a “White House ‘We the People’ Petition?”

It turns out that “The ‘We the People’ Petitioning System,” on the official White House website, was actually initiated by the Obama administration!

Okay…, so if Obama initiated it, it can’t be bashed as being some type of conservative shenanigans!

Gee…, thanks Obama!

The “Petitioning System” promises an official response for every petition that gathers more than 100,000 signatures within 30 days.

This Pelosi petition has garnered over 100,000 signatures after just its first 11 days!

This particular petition, “…was created by a citizen identified only as ‘M.G.,’ and it accuses Pelosi of being a traitor to the American people who is beholden to the interests of illegal immigrants, Big League Politics reported.”

“The petition further blames the San Francisco Democrat for the recent partial government shutdown. It argues she refused to negotiate with President Trump over funding for border security, causing many federal employees to work without pay for more than a month.”

‘“Illegal aliens are enemies that invade our country with drugs, human trafficking, and terrorist causing death and crime to American citizens,’ the petition states.”

‘“Nancy Pelosi adheres to these enemies by voting for and providing them aid and comfort through Sanctuary policies funded by US citizen tax dollars, and refuses to protect American people by refusing to fund our border wall, leaving our borders open and unsafe.’”

“After further complaints about the House speaker, it concludes with, ‘IMPEACH Pelosi for treason!’”

Big League Politics noted the process for impeaching a member of the House requires a majority vote of the chamber, meaning it’s unlikely to happen under the current Democrat majority.

Darn it!

These rules always have to wreck all the fun!

I will have to keep my eyes peeled for the “official response,” however.

“LOCK HER UP! (Both of them!)

“LOCK HER UP! (Both of them!)

“LOCK HER UP! (Both of them!)

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

nancypelosiilliegalimmigrants

 

Go for it Mr. President!

With all due respect Mr. President, please all allow me to offer you my advice related to the current partial government shutdown.

If ending the government shutdown truly depends on either side compromising on building the wall, this shutdown could last for a very long time, which really isn’t a good thing in the end.

After discussing my intentions privately with the republican Senate and House leadership, I would tell Nancy Peloser and Upchuck Schumer that I was ready to reopen and fund the government, without any money for the wall at this point, and that if they sent legislation up to my office, I would sign it.

After my signing it, I’m sure Peloser and Upchuck would quickly proceed to hold a victory press conference to rub your nose in it.

But wait…, I’m coming to the good part!

The moment they began their victory speech, I would declare a state of emergency on our southern border and immediately begin construction of the wall.  Thus upstaging their announcement, while robbing them of gloating over their victory, and ending the shutdown at the same time.

You might as well get it over with and declare the emergency, because the democrats are going to challenge you in court no matter what you do, so you might as well get the ball rolling.  The sooner we get the process moving, the sooner it can get to The Supreme Court, at which time they will deem you are within your rights as The President to do what you have done, and we can get on with securing our border.

Every few weeks now we see another “caravan” has formed, with thousands of people, and is preparing to march through Mexico and challenge our southern border.

If having to deal with these invaders on a weekly basis isn’t a national emergency, what is?

And this is on top of the “normal” amount of drug smuggling and human trafficking.

I would not be overly concerned about setting precedent here.  Was Nancy concerned about setting one with the State of the Union address?

And like it has been pointed out before, if these illegal immigrants were turning around and voting for republicans, the wall would be so big you’d be able to see it from space.

The democrats are going to do what they need to do going forward and so should we, and so should you.

Don’t do what a politician would do.  Do what a patriot and a leader would do.

Go for it Mr. President!

BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!

Like you said, “One way or another.”

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

trump-build-that-wall-701x393 (1)

 

“The state of our Union is…?”

The state of our Union is…, at a crossroads.

Not only is the state of our Union at a crossroads, The State of the Union address itself is at a crossroads.

Speaker of the House, California democrat, Nancy Pelosi, has chosen to throw all congressional tradition and decency to the wayside and disinvite President Trump to give his State of the Union address in the House of Representatives.

She weakly, and unsupported by the truth, suggested that, “it may be difficult to provide security for the event because of the partial government shutdown.”

“Sadly, given the security concerns and unless the government re-opens this week, I suggest that we work together to determine another suitable date after government has re-opened for this address or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union address in writing to Congress on January 29,” Pelosi wrote.

A senior Homeland Security official later told Fox News, however, that they have been preparing for months for the State of the Union event [and that they had no security concerns as referred to by Mrs. Pelosi].

“We are ready,” the official said. “Despite the fact members of the Secret Service are not being paid, the protective mission has not changed.”

According to Alex Pappas and John Roberts of Fox News, “White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley accused Pelosi of ‘trying to play politics with that venue.’ He also dinged the speaker for suggesting it may be difficult to provide security for the event because of the partial government shutdown.”

‘“If the Secret Service can protect the president of the United States on a trip to Iraq, chances are they can protect the American president in the halls of Congress,’ Gidley said.”

“A spokesman for Pelosi did not return a request for comment.  Neither did the House Sergeant at Arms office.”

According to History.House.gov:

“Including President Donald J. Trump’s 2018 address, there have been a total of 95 in-person Annual Messages/State of the Union Addresses.

“Since President Woodrow Wilson’s 1913 address, there have been a total of 83 in-person addresses.”

“The formal basis for the State of the Union Address is from the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3, Clause 1, ‘The President shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.’”

sotu supremes w zzzzzs 2

Never one to let the Constitution get in her way, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has strongly urged the president to delay the speech or submit it in writing amid the government shutdown fight.

Be careful Nancy, you may get what you’re wishing for!

In my opinion, it seems like you are actually doing President Trump a big favor, Nancy.  Not only are you making yourself and your party look petty and foolish, you are providing President Trump with an excuse to give his State of the Union address somewhere other than the stodgy, old, predictable halls of Congress.

Wouldn’t it be awesome to see The President give his address to a crowd of 20-30 thousand supporters in a rally type of atmosphere in say Columbus, Ohio, or in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, or perhaps in Jacksonville, Florida?

Is that what you want Nancy?

Somehow I don’t think so.

But I sure would!

I can hear the standing room only crowd now, screaming, “BUILD THAT WALL! BUILD THAT WALL! BUILD THAT WALL!” “USA, USA, USA” “FOUR MORE YEARS!” “LOCK HER UP! and that “oldie but a goodie,”  “CNN SUCKS!”  Maybe we’ll even hear President Trump’s newest slogan, “BUILD A WALL & CRIME WILL FALL!”

It’s a beautiful thing.

Have you heard the old saying, “Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer,” Nancy?

Letting President Trump out of Washington D.C. would be doing him and all of his supporters a big favor.

It would nice a nice change of pace to watch The State of the Union address without having to see all of those grouchy democrats sitting on their hands, falling asleep, and just generally being disrespectful.

“At the moment, however, President Trump intends to be at the Capitol next Tuesday to deliver his speech as scheduled, sources said.  White House officials told Fox News they essentially are preparing for two tracks for next week’s speech. The preferred track is an address, as per custom, at the Capitol.  The second track is a backup plan for a speech outside of Washington, D.C.”

In the end, whether or not the speech is welcomed on the House floor is up to comrade Pelosi.

The way it stands now, welcome or not, President Trump has a “get out of jail free” card and he should take his “show” on the road!

Winning!

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

trump state of the union

 

Well, I guess we can add Senator Ted Kennedy to the list of treasonous liberals!

Watching “Life, Liberty and Levin” the other night, a TV show hosted by (The Great One) Mark Levin, I was floored by a letter his guest, Paul Kengor, discussed.

Paul Kengor is a political science professor at Grove City College, and the author of the book, “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism,” among others.

According to Sheila Fitzpatrick of the Wiley Online Library, “The opening of formerly closed and classified archives following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was a remarkable experience for historians…, our data base abruptly expanded in a quantum leap…”

This is how a KGB letter, dated May 14, 1983, written at the height of the Cold War, from the head of the KGB Viktor Chebrikov to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party, came to light.

Here is the translated letter:

Special Importance Committee on State Security of the USSR

14.05.1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV Moscow

Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party, Comrade Y.V. Andropov

Comrade Y.V. Andropov,

On 9-10 of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow.  The Senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.  Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous.  The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.  According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics.  He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity.  For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline.  The White House has portrayed this in the media as the “success of Reaganomics.”

Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan.  A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA.  This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic Party.  Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.

The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations.  These issues, according to the Senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.

The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States.  The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth.  In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistance to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.

However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak.  Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective.  Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda.  In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandstand, but subjectively propagandistic.  At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted.  Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.  Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people.  In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:

  1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues. If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit. Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V. Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield.  Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and published a book on the theme as well.)
  2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.

If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews.  Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow.  The Senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.

Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized.  They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military terms. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.  Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world.  Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutual understandings between peoples.

The Senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.

Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises.  Tunney remarked that the Senator wants to run for president in 1988.  At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future).

Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.

We await instructions.

President of the committee,

Viktor Chebrikov

 

Well what do you think about that?

Again…, can you imagine a letter like this being unearthed that implicated a Republican, and the blood bath that would ensue?

It’s so obvious that the “biased, liberal, fake news media” has been “running interference” for democrats for the last 60+ years now, and it continues today.

It sure sounds to me like Senator Kennedy wants to conspire with the Russian leader against the President of the United States at the time, Ronald Reagan.

I don’t know how you call this anything less than treason.

Kevin Mooney, a staff writer for Crosswalk.com at the time, seems to agree with me.  In October of 2006, he wrote, “A KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan’s foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.”

In his letter, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov offered the USSR General Secretary Yuri Andropov his interpretation of Kennedy’s offer.  Former U.S. Senator John Tunney, a democrat from California, and Kennedy’s law school roommate at the University of Virginia, had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov and other Soviet officials, Professor Kengor claimed in his book.

At one point after President Reagan left office, Tunney acknowledged that he had played the role of intermediary.  Tunney later told the London Times that he had made 15 separate trips to Moscow!

Kennedy’s attempt to partner with high-level Soviet officials never materialized, at least as far as we know.  Yuri Andropov died less than eight months receiving the letter about Kennedy from his KGB head, and it is not clear if the Soviet Communist Party chief ever acted on the Democrat senator’s proposal.  Andropov was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev.

“There’s a lot more to be found here,” Professor Kengor told Cybercast News Service. “This was a shocking revelation.”

Kevin Mooney, later an author at “The Daily Signal,” wrote in 2016, “Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy had “selfish political and ideological motives” when he made secret overtures to the Soviet Union’s spy agency during the Cold War to thwart then-President Ronald Reagan’s re-election…”

“In the 1980s, Kennedy was ‘terribly misguided’ and ‘a fool’ for seeing Reagan as a greater threat than either the leader of the Soviet Union or the head of its brutal secret police and intelligence agency,” political science professor and writer Paul Kengor told The Daily Signal.  “But what is clear from history is that Russian agents have worked with “dupes” such as Kennedy and other “naïve” Americans to influence U.S. policy to serve their own ends.”

So, what is the point of this article?

Here’s the point:

President Trump has been under a daily attack, for the better part of two years, from the “biased, liberal, fake news media” regarding some uncorroborated claims of collusion between President Trump and Russia.

In the case of Senator Kennedy, we have an actual letter describing his desires to conspire with a foreign government, and the “biased, liberal, fake news media” chose to, and chooses to, look the other way.

That’s the point.

Whose side are these guys on anyway?

Whoever’s side it is, it’s not “We the People’s” side, that’s for sure.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

ted kennedy

 

Listen to Cher sing her #1 hit, “Do You Believe in Life After Liberalism!?”  

Why anyone cares what Cher has to say is beyond me, but in the liberals’ world it seems she is considered a wise old sage, ala Barbra Streisand, Bette Midler, and Whoopi Goldberg.

In this instance, Cher has demanded that Nancy Pelosi end this partial government shutdown and fund the border wall, tweeting to Nancy, “DON’T DIE ON THIS HILL.”

Maybe I need to reconsider my thoughts on Cher!

Cher has also admitted that she felt she went “too far” with her latest criticisms of President Trump (Whaaat?!), although she’s not exactly sorry for calling him a “cancer ravaging our nation (That sounds more like the Cher I know and love!).”

“I Say What I feel, But There’s a Responsibility That Goes With That,” the 71-year-old singer and actress tweeted. “I Walk Knifes Edge, But Sometimes It’s Too far. This Is Not An Apology….Its a Reprimand.”

She continued, “Just Because I CAN SAY ANYTHING…Doesn’t Mean I SHOULD. Sometimes I Learn The Hard Way, Over & Over. Humans are Fallible.”

Cher’s semi-apology came shortly after she described Trump as a “malignant tumor eating its way through our constitution” in a since-deleted tweet, according to Breitbart News Network.  The news site also reported that Cher called President Trump a “criminal,” a “sociopath” and a “despot.”

According to Fox News, “This is hardly the first time Cher has lashed out against Trump and members of his administration.”

“At an August 2016 Hillary Clinton fundraiser, the singer compared Trump to Hitler and told reporters that Trump was ‘a racist, he’s a misogynist, he’s a horrible person.’”

“She took to Twitter in January to express her sentiments about White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders’ style and shamed her for her everyday wear.”

Cher’s tweet read, “Would someone please tell Sarah Huckabee Sanders to stop dressing like a sister wife?”

“The singer illustrated her tweet with an image of two women in stereotypical clothing.  In the photo the women also sport braids, plain lace-up shoes and high-neck dresses with long sleeves and puffy shoulders.”

After President Trump delivered a prime-time address from the Oval Office making the case for funding the border wall, which was followed by a response from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who argued that the president must reopen the government in order to continue conversations about border security, Cher took to Twitter to blast the president for promising that Mexico would pay for the wall and demanded him to end the government shutdown.

The next day, however, she called out Pelosi: “NANCY YOU ARE A HERO. LET (Trump) HAVE HIS FKNG MONEY. PPL WILL STARVE LOSE THEIR HOMES, B UNABLE 2 C DRS.”

Cher then demanded Democrats to “stop” the shutdown before Trump does: “HELL B HERO… HE’LL EAT UR LUNCH & STEAL UR LUNCH YOU’LL B FKD 6 WAYS 2 SUNDAY.DONT DIE ON THIS HILL. HE STOPS AT NOTHING.”

I’m sorry Nancy, but I feel that I have to go along with Cher on this one.  You need to let President Trump have the money for the wall.

“If I could turn back time…,” I’d vote for Donald Trump all over again!

Winning!

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

cher turn back time

Is it Nancy (the sky is falling) Pelosi and (Up) Chuck Schumer…, or maybe “Mork and Mindy?”  How about “Beavis and Butthead?”

Andrea Park of “W” for Yahoo Politics reported that, “Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) crowded around one podium to offer the Democrat Party’s rebuttal to President Donald Trump’s prime-time address concerning the government shutdown and his proposed border wall.”

“Wherever you land on the political spectrum, there’s no denying that Schumer and Pelosi’s stern rebuttal to Trump channeled the feeling of two parents standing side by side and chastising their trouble-making teen, a comparison that was made many times over in the flood of memes the Democrat response sparked online.”

Again, a “meme” is a humorous image that is copied (often with slight variations or enhancements) and spread rapidly by Internet users.

schumer pelosi

“Elsewhere in this deluge were approximately one billion tweets [ONE BILLION tweets!], likening the disapproving duo to Grant Wood’s 1930 artwork “American Gothic,” as well as only slightly less repetitive comparisons to The Scooby-Doo Show villains, Madame Tussauds’s wax figures, those ubiquitous AAG reverse mortgage commercials, and SNL’s Bobbie and Marty Culp.  Pelosi and Schumer were also offered up as prospective Oscars hosts, …as the Fiji Water girl from the Golden Globes somehow snuck into the background of their speech.”

schumer and pelosi

It was funny that someone apparently thought it was a good idea for the two of them to squeeze behind the same podium.  And you couldn’t tell they were reading from a teleprompter at all!!!

Their partnership will go down in history, no doubt, right alongside Sonny and Cher, Archie and Edith, Herman and Lilly, Al and Peggy and Lucy and Desi.

“Nancy…, you got some ‘splainin’ to do!”

“Oh, Chuckie!”

You really can’t make this stuff up.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

pelosi schumer

 

 

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑