I’m calling out some of these business “experts” and their “trumped-up” (no pun intended) predictions of “doom and gloom” for 2019. 

I’ve been seeing more and more of these “doom and gloom” business “experts,” financial “experts,” and economic “experts” calling for an economic slowdown in 2019, and even a recession in some cases!

The backgrounds of these “doom and gloomers” is across the board, so their motivations for these predictions are all different as well.

“Experts” from the “biased, liberal, fake news media” are of course trying to set-up a self-fulfilling prophecy for their own political benefit; the country be damned.

Some “experts” are just trying to be contrarian in order to stand out.

Some “experts” are just plain confused, and they are over-analyzing the economy in general.

And some “experts” really aren’t experts at all, and they’re just wrong.

Just to name a few, we’ve got Henry Fernandez of Fox Business News claiming, “The US economy will likely fall into a recession next year.”

We’ve got, Charles Schwab’s, Liz Ann Sonders, claiming, “The U.S. economy will likely fall into a recession next year.”

Kevin Kelleher of FORTUNE reminds us that, “2018 has been a banner year for economic growth,” (thank you for stating the obvious Kevin) but that “according to many economists,” “2019 will bring an economic slowdown with a recession possible in 2020.”

Benjamin Fearnow (aptly named) of Newsweek (“Weak News”) says, “CFOs predict 2019 recession, majority expect pre-2020 market crash!”  Mr. Fearnow goes on to say that, “An overwhelming majority of U.S. chief financial officers say the economy will sink into a recession by the end of President Donald Trump’s first term in 2020, and about half say it will happen next year.”

Wow!  So in this case, we’ve doubled down and are going “all in” on an actual “market collapse!” I’d like to see a list of these CFOs that gave their input on this.  I’m not so sure that CFOs (Chief Financial Officers) are the right ones to be getting this information from in the first place.  CFOs typically don’t make company policy, they bookkeep it.

“The end is near for the near-decade-long burst of global economic growth,” said John Graham, a finance professor at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and director of the survey, in a statement. “The U.S. outlook has declined; moreover, the outlook is even worse in many other parts of the world, which will lead to softer demand for U.S. goods.”

The “decade-long burst of global economic growth” referred to here was at the expense of The United States I’m afraid, Mr. Graham, and we weren’t an economic recipient of “that” growth, we subsidized it.

Economist Peter Schiff said that “We won’t be able to call it a recession, it’s going to be worse than the Great Depression…, the U.S. economy is in so much worse shape than it was a decade ago.”

“Worse than the Great Depression?!”  Really Mr. Schiff?  You aren’t any relation to democrat congressman Adam Schiff are you?  Because if you were, that would explain your propensity for the absurd.

“Bloomberg” economics writer, Jeanna Smialek’s chose to go with the headline, “JPMorgan, Bank of America Detect Hints of a U.S. Recession Looming in 2019,” even though her article points out, “Wall Street’s biggest banks are scouring U.S. data for signals of an impending recession.  On balance, they’ve been finding that a 2019 downturn still isn’t likely…”

Ms. Smialek would seem fall into the “Experts from the “biased, liberal, fake news media,” who are trying to set-up a self-fulfilling prophecy for their own political agenda; the country be damned” group.

The resident “experts” on CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC have all, of course, chimed in with their predictions of demise regarding anything Trump related.

This list could go on, but you get the idea I’m sure.

Now, I, admittedly am no economics expert, but I have two eyes, a relatively functional brain, and some common sense.

Here is my take on the U.S.’s economy for 2019 and into 2020.

But first, a little historical perspective.

The economy started to improve immediately in December of 2016 and into 2017 after President Trump was elected, and that was just based on the expectations of the impact of his actions.

The President’s only real actions in 2017 had to do with the reduction of regulations and the signing into law of The Trump tax cut and tax reform plan.  The new law would not begin to offer any real benefits to people or to companies until 2018.

In 2018 individuals were able to keep a little more of their own money due to tax cuts, and business were more easily able to invest their own money in improvements and expansion with drastically reduced capital gains tax penalties.

So in all reality, the United States economy is really only showing the benefits of the new tax laws and some reworked trade policies for about the last six months.

That bring us to 2019.

MrEricksonRules is predicting that 2019 will be an excellent year, economically, for The United States!

2019 will be the year that people see the real benefit of the new tax cuts law.  Families across the country will pay thousands less in taxes and/or get thousands more back.  This can only help stimulate the economy even more in the second and third quarters of 2019.

Although many of these “experts” see President Trumps “tariff wars” as economic negatives, I can only see them being a positive thing for our economy.  I see businesses across the board beginning to reap the benefits of the new USAMC trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, and the same goes especially for the new agreements with China.

Also, as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, and a recent directing Executive Order, President Trump is encouraging long-term investments in low-income urban and rural communities nationwide. The Opportunity Zones program provides a tax incentive for investors, which should also help to stimulate the economy in whole new areas.  It also directs government entities to prioritize these zones for expenditures as well.

2019 will also see record revenues for the federal government, due to the booming economy and the increase in the number of taxpayers overall.  These revenues may help us to avoid increasing the federal deficit and possibly even work on bringing the deficit down.  At this point I would settle for just a slowing of the amount we owe.

So, based on my “expertise,” I would tend to disagree with most of these so-called “experts.”

I would go as far to say that 2020 will just build off of 2019, and that President Trump will be running for re-election having orchestrated the most impressive economic turn around and economic run since Ronald Reagan in the early 80’s.

Larry Kudlow, who is serving as president of the National Economic Council under President Trump, seems to agree with me, when he says,  “In my personal view, our administration’s view, recession is so far in the distance I can’t see it,” Kudlow said. “The basic economy has reawakened and it’s gonna stay there…, I mean, I’m reading some of the weirdest stuff, how a recession is around the corner.  It’s nonsense.”

I think The President would second that notion as well.

Regarding the Stock Market, I believe there is still a lot of value to be had there.  I feel the Market remains undervalued at this point.

Paul Dietrich of FOX Business feels the same way I do.  He goes on to say, “There seems to be a new “fear of the day” knocking down the stock market.  Chinese trade talks, Brexit, government shutdowns, Fed rate hikes, inverted yield curves or Trump’s tweets all seem to be culprits in this conspiracy to drive down the stock market.  None of these issues have any significant impact on the underlying U.S. economy.”

Overall, The Market will continue to bounce up and down, but also maintain its positive general momentum.

Remember, however, that what’s good for Wall Street is not necessarily what’s good for Main Street.

In 2019 and 2020, we’ll take a look back and see how I did versus “the experts.”

If any of the media outlets want to contact me at some point regarding business and economic prospectives, you can do so via the “contact” feature on my blog website.

 

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.

mayan calendar

 

The FBI missed its deadline to provide documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the “FBI’s whistleblower raid.”  This was the easiest prediction of the year.

Yes, the Justice Department and FBI missed their deadline to provide information about the government’s mysterious raid on a former FBI contractor’s home last month.

If you check out my blog from December 6, 2018 titled “The KGB…, oops I mean the FBI is at it again!” you’ll see that I said,

“The documents in question allegedly show that federal officials failed to investigate possible criminal activity related to Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, the Russian nuclear company whose subsidiary purchased Uranium One in 2013.”

“No one will ever see or hear of those documents again, unless Mr. Cain was wise enough to have created duplicates and dispersed them to multiple locations.”

“Grassley has given Wray [the FBI Director] and Horowitz [the department of Justice Inspector General] until Dec. 12, 2018 to respond.”

“Anybody want to bet they ignore that deadline?”

“Anybody want to bet they ignore the request entirely?”

Let’s recap exactly what happened here.

Back in November, sixteen FBI agents (Do you that was enough agents?) raided the home of Dennis Nathan Cain.  Mr. Cain reportedly gave the Justice Department’s Inspector General (IG) documents related to the Uranium One controversy, the potential wrongdoing by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the bureau’s failure to investigate Hillary Clinton.

The documents in question (known as the “Uranium One” documents) allegedly showed that federal officials failed to investigate possible criminal activity related to Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, a Russian nuclear company.

Cain’s lawyer, Michael Socarras, told The Daily Caller the agent who led the raid accused his client of possessing stolen federal property. In response, Cain reportedly claimed he was a protected whistleblower under federal law, and said he was recognized as such by Horowitz.

This wasn’t anything the FBI wasn’t already aware of Mr. Cain.

What is the FBI hoping to accomplish by keeping the American people in the dark?  They’re hoping to cover their asses, the DOJ’s asses, Hillary’s backside, along with former President Obama and all of his stooges.

Questioning whether “we now live in a secret police state,” Cain took his frustration about the situation to Twitter earlier this week.

Note: The answer to his question apparently has to be “yes.”

“So I blow the whistle on the FBI, get raided by the same FBI, and now they want to keep the FBI’s reasons secret?  Do we now live in a secret police state?  Feels a little like 1984,” Cain tweeted.

“As frustrating and violating as this feels to me and my family. I will continue to put my trust in God. Someday this life will pass away. I will stand before my maker with a clean conscience and Jesus as my defender.  Until then I continue to fight the good fight with God’s help,” Cain tweeted.

The FBI consistently has refused Fox News’ request for comment on the whistleblower raid and the Judiciary Committee’s requests.  An FBI spokesperson told Fox News the agency would respond only to inquiries from the entity that requested the documents, in this case, the Judiciary Committee.

Oh, you mean the same FBI that refuses to respond to the Judiciary Committee’s request in the first place?  Sounds legit…, not!

And we also have to ask ourselves why Fox News the only news organization requesting any comments from the FBI and the DOJ about this whole mess?

We all know the answer to that question don’t we?  It’s the old “biased, liberal, fake news media” tactic that says, “If we don’t acknowledge something happened, then it didn’t happen.”  It’s propaganda by omission.

It’s also “the swamp” looking after its own.

In a related topic, my blog from January 2, 2018 addresses the question, “What happens when the investigators need to be investigated?”

 

Thanks to Fox News’ Gregg Re, Samuel Chamberlain and Brooke Singman for contributing to this article.

 

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.

dirty dossier dozen

 

It seems the Central American “refugees’” need for “political asylum” is now negotiable.

As we have seen “ad nauseam” in the news recently, we have gigantic “caravans” of migrants from Central America, attempting to forcibly enter The United States through Mexico.

We have also seen that their attempt to barge into America seems to have stalled in Tijuana, on the Mexican side of the border.

If they are successful in illegally crossing the border, and if they are caught, they must be freed into our communities for a later court hearing date which 96% of these people don’t show up for.

The other possibility is requesting political asylum at a designated Port of Entry.

The reason the migrants want to avoid having to do this is that the inspections officers have the power to quickly find them inadmissible and deport them.  In this case they will not be allowed to return for five years. This can happen if an inspector believes that the person is making a misrepresentation of the truth. This quick deportation procedure is known as “summary exclusion.”

But here is what we are really talking about.

There is an exception to the summary exclusion process for people who fear persecution and request asylum.  So, even if you do not have the proper documents or you have made a misrepresentation, you could still be allowed to enter the U.S. if you make clear that your reason is to apply for asylum and you can show that you’d be likely to win an asylum case.

After you have said you want to apply for asylum, you’ll immediately be given a “credible fear” interview by an asylum officer.  The purpose of this interview is to make sure you have a significant possibility of winning your case.  Most importantly, the officer will want to be sure that your request is based on a fear of persecution.  This interview is supposed to be scheduled quickly, within one or two days.

If the officer isn’t convinced of your fear, you must request a hearing before an immigration judge. If you don’t, you will be deported from the U.S., and not be allowed to return for five years. The judge must hold the hearing within seven days, either in person or by telephone.

If the judge finds that you have a credible fear of persecution, you’ll be scheduled for a full hearing. In that case, you should seek an attorney. This proceeding will take place in Immigration Court, before a judge, and with an attorney representing the Department of Homeland Security.

The right of asylum is an ancient juridical concept, under which a person persecuted by one’s own country may be protected by another sovereign authority, such as another country or church official, who in medieval times could offer sanctuary.

Political asylum, specifically, is the protection granted by a nation to someone who has left their native country as a political refugee.

Supposedly, political asylum is what the majority of these migrants are seeking in The United States.

According to The San Diego Union-Tribune, “Two groups of Central American migrants marched to the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana with a list of demands, with one group delivering an ultimatum to the Trump administration: either let them in the U.S. or pay them $50,000 each to go home.”

Why do these people feel they are in any position to make demands on anyone, let alone The President of The United States?!  And $50,000 each?  These people are hilarious!

“Alfonso Guerreo Ulloa, an organizer from Honduras, said the $50,000 figure was chosen as a group.”

Oh, the fact they “chose this figure as a group” makes it much more reasonable!

“It may seem like a lot of money to you,” Ulloa told the paper. “But it is a small sum compared to everything the United States has stolen from Honduras.”

Soooo you want us to give you political asylum, but in the same breath you’re accusing us of stealing from your home country of Honduras?

Brilliant!  We are all now just a little stupider for having listened to you.

“He said the money would allow the migrants to return home and start a small business.”

Wait a minute!  I thought you were coming here with claims of being politically persecuted in Honduras, but now they will let you come back and start a small business and everything will be fine?

Just to let Alfonso and all of you “refugees” know, you’re not helping your cause at all right now.

In fact you are making it very apparent that your motivation for coming to our country is for the money and economic opportunity, not because you are political refugees, just like President Trump has stated many times.

We are throwing a party for all of the “caravaners,” however!  We’re featuring visas and long walks back to where you came from…, and we’re all out of visas!

Adios amigos!

WINNING!

 

Louis Casiano of Fox News contributed to this article.

 

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.

migrant caravan

 

“Nothing unmasks a man [or a woman] like his [or her] use of power.” – Elbert Hubbard, American writer

Our favorite House Representative-elect, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has not even taken her oath of office yet, or spent one minute officially on her new job yet, and she is already threatening others with her newly gained powers (at least in her mind) to be.

Way to go Alexandria!  We have an overachiever here!  She’s just a little over anxious to flex her socialist ruling class muscle, however!

So what’s the story here?

Being the social media maven that she is, Ocasio-Cortez managed to get into an “Instagram” tussle with our favorite “junior,” Donald Trump, Jr.

It all started when Don Jr. posted a meme to his “Instagram” account showing Ocasio-Cortez and President Donald Trump debating each other, with Ocasio-Cortez asking, “Why are you afraid of a socialist economy?” and The President replying, “Because Americans want to walk their dogs, not eat them.”

Ha!

For those not familiar with social media lingo, a “meme” (pronounced MEEM) is a picture with a statement or funny phrase added to it.  Many of the pictures that I attach to my blogs would be considered memes.

Anyway, so Don Jr. posts this meme with the added commentary, “funny cuz’ it’s true.”

The meme is drawing a connection between Ocasio-Cortez’s political beliefs and reports coming out of Venezuela that dogs, cats and zoo animals are being eaten by residents due to the country’s corruption and its socialist policies that have failed, the Washington Post has reported.

Ocasio-Cortez then responded via Twitter, “I have noticed that Junior here has a habit of posting nonsense about me whenever the Mueller investigation heats up.”

She then additionally tweeted, “Please, keep it coming Jr – it’s definitely a “very, very large brain” idea to troll a member of a body that will have subpoena power in a month.  Have fun!”

Well, after seeing this response, supporters of The President, friends of Don Jr. and conservatives in general, didn’t waste any time accusing her of threatening to improperly use subpoena power to retaliate against The President and his son because of his son’s behavior.

“A sitting congresswoman has no right to use her power to threaten someone. @DonaldJTrumpJr has rights, and @Ocasio2018 threatened them because he “trolled” her.  That’s inexcusable,” tweeted conservative journalist Justin T. Haskins.

“Are you threatening to use your power as a federal official to subpoena anyone who mocks or otherwise disagrees with you on the Internet?” tweeted Sean Davis (@seanmdav).

“I just want to be clear: Did a member-elect of Congress just threaten a private citizen with a subpoena over a meme?  There is no way in hell that this can be legal,” conservative commentator Candace Owens tweeted.

“Did you just threaten to subpoena someone for criticizing you?  As a lawyer and former prosecutor I find this deeply troubling,” Kimberly Guilfoyle tweeted.

Ocasio-Cortez should be aware that, per page 150 of the House Ethics Manual, “Members…are not to take or withhold any official action on the basis of the campaign contributions or support of the involved individuals, or their partisan affiliation. Members and staff are likewise prohibited from threatening punitive action on the basis of such considerations.” Ocasio-Cortez does seemingly threaten to possibly subpoena Donald Trump Jr. when she takes office in a month.  This would be a violation of the House Ethics Manual, which of course only actually applies to Republicans.

There were other “tweeters” who came to her defense, however.

“Only a poorly educated right-winger with a tenuous grasp of language would ever perceive this as some sort of ‘threat,’” tweeted Ajohms1956.

“The comments here are hilarious and a little disturbing.  People either cannot read or they’re reading what their minds want to read. You said you’ll be a member of a body that has subpoena power. You DID NOT say that YOU will have subpoena power,” tweeted @chris_newsome.

It really gets kind of boring hearing these liberals questioning peoples’ level of education and intelligence whenever these other people don’t agree with them.  It’s also quite comical when they try to tell you what you were supposed to see or hear, according to them, as opposed to what you actually did see or hear, as if we needed their help interpreting the input from our senses!

After social media “blew up” over this whole fiasco, Ocasio-Cortez, who apparently now took the time to do a little homework, posted a tweet responding to people questioning her intent by “walking back” her prior statements and reminding them all how subpoena power actually works.

Oh yes Alexandria, please “clarify” your remarks, put them in the “proper context” for us uneducated dolts, and educate us all now!

“For the GOP crying that this is a ‘threat’ – I don’t have power to subpoena anybody,” she tweeted.  “Congress as a body, GOP included, has the power. No indiv. member can issue a subpoena unless they are a Chair (which, as a freshman, I can assure you I will not be). Also must be under purview.”

Impressive!  You can read, write and recite from your little handbook there, with the help of at least one of your “aides” no doubt!

Your performance here, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, is just what we were all expecting from you:  Typically uninformed, unencumbered Constitutionally, and promoting socialistic nonsense.

I have to say, you may not be the brightest candle on the cake, and your pro-socialism stances undermine our perception of your intelligence, but you are genuine and you are not the typical “baffle them with bs” politician.  For that I do give you some credit.

This will definitely be an entertaining next couple of years!

Keep those twitter accounts humming!

 

Thanks for contributing to this article to Maxine Shen for DailyMail.com and Liz Wolfe of “The Federalist.”

 

“Power attracts the corruptible.” – Frank Herbert, American writer

“Nothing destroys authority more than the unequal and untimely interchange of power stretched too far and relaxed too much.” – Sir Francis Bacon

“The stupidity of men [and women] always invites the insolence of power.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

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.

socialist-ocasio-cortez-trump

 

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

With all due respect Mr. President, and I am saying “with all due respect,” it is time to draw a line in the sand and make your stand.

President Trump met Democrat leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi in the Oval office yesterday, December 11, 2018, to discuss border security, the wall, and continuing to fund the government.

The President allowed the press to attend the beginning of the meeting, and the cameras were on, as The President said, “If we don’t have border security, we’ll shut down the government.”

President Trump repeatedly told Mrs. Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, that what she’s proposing would not pass the Senate.

“If it’s not good [on] border security, I won’t take it,” President Trump quickly replied.

Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer repeatedly urged The President to take the meeting private, (all the more reason not to) but not before he declared he’s “proud to shut down the government for border security” and will “take the mantle.”

Prior to the meeting, and earlier in the morning, President Trump threatened to have the military “build the remaining sections” of the wall if Congress doesn’t deliver the funding.

As President Trump began discussing the details of the negotiations, with Vice President Mike Pence also in attendance, Mrs. Pelosi complained, “I don’t think you should have a debate in front of the press.” And at another point, Mr. Schumer added, “Let’s debate in private.”

I’m sure there was a reason President Trump wanted at least a portion of the discussion out in the open for all to see.  I’m guessing The President wanted the two Democrat leaders, and democrats in general, to have to own their positions in a way that could not be confused or re-translated later.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, they say.

“Elections have consequences, Mr. President,” Schumer interjected, undoubtedly hoping to bolster his position.

“And that’s why the country is doing so well,” The President responded.

Mr. Schumer then challenged President Trump over his boasting that Republicans kept control of the Senate.  “When a president brags that he’s won Indiana and North Dakota, he’s in real trouble,” Schumer offered.

Apparently Mr. Schumer has a lack of respect for the states and the people from the states of Indiana and North Dakota, as he seems to denigrate the value of these states.

Congress last week temporarily averted a partial shutdown amid the funeral services for the late President George H.W. Bush, pushing the new deadline to Dec. 21.

President Trump wants $5 billion for the wall project, while Democrats are offering $1.3 billion for border security, which doesn’t include an actual wall.

Mrs. Pelosi said she and many other Democrats consider the wall “immoral, ineffective and expensive.”

Speaking for conservatives, I think we have seen with the recent caravan and those people waiting in Tijuana, Mexico, how effective an actual wall is and how necessary it is given our current immigration laws.

Mr. Schumer said Democrats want to work with President Trump to avert a shutdown, but said, “Money for border security should not include the concrete wall President Trump has envisioned.  Instead, the money should be used for fencing and technology that experts say is appropriate.”

Yes, Mr. Schumer, we are all aware that you can always find “experts” to support any position you may take or any belief you may have.

President Trump has said that Congress should provide all the money he wants for the wall and called illegal immigration a “threat to the well-being of every American community.”

Even though the Republicans will pick-up a couple of seats in the Senate next year, they currently have 51 votes.  Sixty votes are required in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, thus effectively blocking a proposal.

Let’s remember that during President Trump’s campaign for president, at every jam packed rally, in the dozens of states he visited, he promoted building a wall and the people in attendance chanted, “BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!”

If ever a president had a mandate, based on an election, to do anything, it is President Trump’s mandate to “build the wall.”

“We the People” have waited long enough.

We want our wall!

And yes, Mr. Schumer, elections do have consequences, and don’t you dare try and throw your weak midterms in our faces.  Especially you, as your party lost even more seats in the Senate!

You want The President and us to “own” shutting the government down in order to get our wall?  Fine!  We will proudly own the shutdown, and we don’t care if it’s shut down until the 2020 election!

“We the People” wanted a wall on our southern border and we elected Donald Trump to build that wall.

I would further respectfully suggest that President Trump address the nation, similar to the way President Reagan did on several occasions, bypassing the “biased, liberal, fake news media” “filter,” and make your case for the wall directly to the American people, putting some pressure on their representatives.

“Maybe Poker’s just not your game, Chuckie.  I know, let’s have a spelling contest!” – adapted quote from the movie “Tombstone.”

 

Thanks to Alex Pappas and Chad Pergram of Fox News, and Judson Berger and The Associated Press for contributing to this article.

 

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.

trump pelosi schumer wall mtg

 

The KGB…, oops, I mean the FBI is at it again!

Apparently “the swamp” runs pretty deep over at the good ol’ FBI.

Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, and current Chairman of The Senate Judiciary Committee, wants answers about an FBI raid conducted on a “whistleblower,” who apparently had information on Hillary Clinton, The Clinton Foundation and “Uranium One.”

Please refer to my previous blog on January 5, 2018, “Grand Theft Uranium,” “Oh what a tangled, and radioactive, web they weave!” for a little more background on this subject.

“Uranium One” is [was] a Canadian mining company whose sale to a Russian firm was approved in 2010. The U.S. government was involved because the sale gave the Russians control of part [approximately 15%] of the U.S. uranium supply [uranium of course being necessary to produce nuclear energy or nuclear weapons]. The transaction has faced renewed scrutiny after “The Hill” reported last year that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S.

Sen. Grassley has written to FBI Director Christopher Wray and the Justice Department’s internal watchdog (a government “watchdog” is a group or individual within an organization charged with self-policing against illegal or unethical conduct) to request information about the raid on the home of a former FBI contractor, Dennis Cain, who gave the watchdog documents related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to a Russian firm’s subsidiary.

“Whistleblowers” are supposed to be protected because the “whistleblowing” is usually on people or groups that can manipulate them or do them harm.  In this case, because of the nature of the case, and those involved, the “whistleblower” was not protected, but in fact it appears targeted and tampered with.

According to “The Daily Caller,” “16 FBI agents raided the Maryland home of Dennis Nathan Cain on Nov. 19 [2018].  Cain’s lawyer, Michael Socarras, told the website that the agent who led the raid accused his client of possessing stolen federal property.  In response, Cain reportedly claimed that he was a protected whistleblower under federal law and had been recognized as such by the DOJ watchdog, Michael Horowitz.”

Socarras also claimed that Horowitz had transmitted his information to The House and Senate intelligence committees.

The documents in question allegedly show that federal officials failed to investigate possible criminal activity related to Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, the Russian nuclear company whose subsidiary purchased Uranium One in 2013.

No one will ever see or hear of those documents again, unless Mr. Cain was wise enough to have created duplicates and dispersed them to multiple locations.

In his letter to Wray, Grassley asked on what basis the FBI raided Cain’s home?

Raided on what basis?

It was raided on a big CYA basis!  That’s what kind of basis!

It was raided because the FBI wanted to control whatever evidence was there.

He also asked whether the bureau was aware of Cain’s disclosures to Horowitz’s office; whether the bureau considered those disclosures to be protected, and whether agents seized classified information in the raid.

Grassley has given Wray and Horowitz until Dec. 12, 2018 to respond.

Anybody want to bet he ignores that deadline?

Anybody want to bet he ignores the request entirely?

Fox News has previously reported that Douglas Campbell, an FBI informant, involved in the deal, has testified to lawmakers that Moscow paid millions to American lobbying firm “APCO Worldwide” to influence Clinton and the Obama administration.

Wait…, let me get this straight…, “Moscow paid millions to American lobbying firm “APCO Worldwide” to influence Clinton and the Obama administration,” but we are investigating President Trump regarding Russian collusion and Russian influence in our election?

It must be really hard for Robert Mueller to manage an investigation against President Trump, when all he does is trip over evidence against Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration every time he turns around!

“The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over 12 months,” Campbell said in his statement this past February. “APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the US-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.”

APCO has denied Campbell’s claims while Clinton called any claims of wrongdoing related to the Uranium One deal “the same baloney they’ve been peddling for years, and there’s been no credible evidence by anyone.”

“In fact,” Clinton told C-SPAN in October, “it’s been debunked repeatedly and will continue to be debunked.”

Au contraire Mrs. Clinton.  Nothing here has been “debunked.”  The story has been ignored by the “biased, liberal, fake news media;” you and your friends continue to just deny, deny, deny, but nothing has been “debunked.”

It never hurts to have the FBI on your side either.

 

Thank you to Samuel Chamberlain of Fox news for contributing to this story.

 

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.

fbi compromised

Robert Mueller’s “Gestapo-like” tactics are being challenged in court!  

Conservative writer Jerome Corsi has filed a criminal complaint against Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team, which alleges their desire to seek false testimony from Mr. Corsi, along with other claims of “gross prosecutorial misconduct and criminal acts,” in regards to their investigation of Dr. Jerome Corsi, Ph.d.

In the complaint, Dr. Corsi, an investigative journalist, whose activities are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, claims he has been threatened with immediate indictment by Mueller’s prosecutorial staff unless he testifies falsely against Roger Stone and/or President Donald Trump and his presidential campaign, among other false testimony.

From what I have read of Mr. Corsi’s complaint, he seems to have a very good case on multiple claims, and Mr. Mueller and his henchmen are getting some light shined on their questionable activities and tactics.

Based on Mr. Corsi’s complaint, I believe Mueller could be guilty of:

18 U.S. Code § 1512 – Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.

Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official  proceeding.

And:

18 U.S. Code § 872 – Extortion by officers or employees of the United States

Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(“Ctrl” and “click” on the link below if you’d like to read the actual complaint that was submitted.)

READ: JEROME CORSI’S COMPLAINT AGAINST SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER

So why did I choose to call Mueller’s tactics “Gestapo-like?”  Well, let’s take a look at Hitler’s Gestapo first of all.

The Gestapo was the official secret political police of Nazi Germany.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “The Gestapo operated without civil restraints.”

This is starting to sound familiar already!

“During the Nazi regime’s existence, harsh measures were meted out to political opponents and those who resisted Nazi doctrine.  To the people, the Gestapo seemed omniscient and omnipotent, and it evoked an atmosphere of fear.  Opposition to Hitler and his regime was not tolerated, so the Gestapo had an important role to play in monitoring and prosecuting all who opposed Nazi rule, whether openly or covertly.”

Now let’s plug in a few current names and terms into this statement and see how it translates:

During “the swamp’s” existence, harsh measures were meted out to political opponents and those who resisted liberal doctrine.  To the liberals, Mueller and his team seemed omniscient and omnipotent, and it evoked an atmosphere of fear.  Opposition to “the swamp” and liberalism in general was not tolerated, so Mueller and his team had an important role to play in monitoring and prosecuting all who opposed “the swamp” and liberalism, whether openly or covertly.”

Get the picture?

I just read that a former attorney for President Trump, Michael Cohen, was forced to endure more than 70 hours of interrogation by Mueller and his team.  If that doesn’t conjure up visions of a Gestapo-like interrogation nothing does!

Ok, so back to the topic at hand.

Jerome Corsi, who is a conservative author, filed a “criminal and ethics complaint” against Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, accusing investigators of trying to bully him into giving “false testimony” against President Trump.

According to Judson Berger, Alex Pappas and Samuel Chamberlain of Fox News, and The Associated Press, “The complaint, which Corsi had threatened for days, is the latest escalation between Mueller’s team and its investigation targets.”

“The 78-page document, asserting the existence of a ‘slow-motion coup against the president,’ was filed to a range of top law enforcement officials including Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, D.C.’s U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu and the Bar Disciplinary Counsel.”

“Dr. Corsi has been criminally threatened and coerced to tell a lie and call it the truth,” the complaint states.

“Corsi, who wrote the anti-President Obama book “The Obama Nation” and is connected with political operative Roger Stone, has claimed for the past week that he was being improperly pressured by Mueller’s team to strike a plea deal which he now says he won’t sign.”

According to Corsi’s complaint, they wanted him to demonstrate that he acted as a liaison between Stone and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on one side and the Trump campaign on the other, regarding the release of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee.

The complaint states that Mueller’s office is now “knowingly and deceitfully threatening to charge Dr. Corsi with an alleged false statement,” unless he gives them “false testimony” against Trump and others.

Asked about the complaint, Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said they would decline to comment, as did a Justice Department spokesman.

Perhaps we need a Special Counsel to investigate the Special Counsel?

“The complaint is the latest sign of turbulence between Mueller’s team and investigation targets and witnesses.”

“President Trump has maintained his stance that ‘there is no collusion’ and blasted Mueller’s investigation in stark terms last week.”

Corsi is represented in his complaint by Larry Klayman, a conservative lawyer who founded “Judicial Watch” and is known for filing lawsuits against former President Bill Clinton.  In the complaint, Klayman argues that the activities of Corsi, as an “investigative journalist,” are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Where are all the people from “the media” that were losing their minds over CNN’s Jim Acosta’s alleged First Amendment rights concerns?  We all are certainly aware of why Jim Acosta gets treated differently than Jerome Corsi at this point.  Acosta plays for the liberal team and Corsi doesn’t.  It’s as simple as that.

 

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.

trials for treason

 

Extra, Extra, read all about it!  Former President Obama says, “A woman or candidate of color could beat Trump!”

So, “A woman or candidate of color could beat Trump?”  Really Mr. Obama?  “A woman or candidate of color could beat Trump?”  That’s amazing!  I never would have thought it was possible!

This statement isn’t racist or sexist at all, is it?  How about a gay man or a lesbian?  What about someone who is disabled?  Would they have a chance as well?

Barack Obama talked about the choice facing Democrats in a podcast interview with his old buddy and political strategist, David Axelrod, at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics.

What a wonderfully diverse institute of thought that must be!

Mr. Axelrod, as it turns out, is actually the institute’s director!

Wow!  It just keeps getting better!

Mr. Axelrod is also a commentator for CNN in his spare time!

Oh, well, then you know he’s gotta be good!

In the podcast, Axelrod asked Mr. Obama about, “those who say the party would make a mistake in selecting another woman or candidate of color as its presidential nominee.”

Neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Axelrod mentioned any names, regarding these beliefs, of course.

Michael Avenatti, everyone’s favorite Trump hating, Kavanaugh bashing, self-proclaimed potential democrat candidate for president in 2020 and self-righteous attorney, said in an interview with Time Magazine last month that he believes “a white man would have the best chance at winning [the presidential election of 2020].”

“I think it better be a white male,” said Mr. Avenatti, who is openly considering a White House bid. “When you have a white male making the arguments, they carry more weight.  Should they carry more weight?  Absolutely not.  But do they?  Yes.”

After some of his comments were called into question, Avenatti quickly cleared up all of the concern and confusion by explaining he was referring to “the sexism and bigotry that ‘other’ white males engage in,” not him, of course.

It is almost comical what these liberals are allowed to get away with.  Are they really listening to themselves?  A conservative would have been hung out to dry seven ways ‘till Sunday for daring to utter these insensitive words.

In fact, shortly after making his enlightened comments, Mr. Avenatti was arrested on suspicion of felony domestic violence, after his girlfriend told police he abused her at his Los Angeles apartment following an argument.

You really couldn’t make this stuff up.

Not to be outdone, another potential democrat candidate for president in 2020, Bernie Sanders, decided to put his foot in his mouth during an interview this month with “The Daily Beast,” in which he said that there are “a lot of white folks out there in Florida and Georgia who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American.”

Ah yes, Bernie, do tell about all of those rare “unicorns” in Florida and Georgia “who are not necessarily racist!”  Tell us about all of those people there who are uncomfortable voting for African-Americans as well.  Not like the people in your own well educated and noble state of Vermont!

A Sanders spokesman later clarified in a statement to NPR (a clarification we would all hear, of course, since everyone listens to NPR) that the senator was speaking about racist attacks made by ‘others’ against both [African-American] candidates [in Florida and Georgia].

Ugh.

Later in the Axelrod interview, Mr. Obama cited his own 2008 victory as well as Trump’s in 2016 as examples of how generalizations about the chances of certain candidates could prove to be wrong.

He did, however, contrast his own view of America with what he described as that of the current president.

Oh boy, here we go….

“I think what’s unique about America is our aspirations to be a large, successful, multiracial, multicultural, multiethnic, multi-religious, pluralistic democracy,” Mr. Obama said.

“Do you think that’s President Trump’s vision?”  Mr. Axelrod asked.

Obama responded without hesitation, saying, “No.  Obviously not.  We have contrasting visions about what America is.  And that’s self-apparent.”

I would respond that I feel you are off base a bit there, President Obama.

I would say that your vision for America and President Trump’s vision for America are quite similar.  Similar except for that “successful” part.

You weren’t very good at that “successful” part.

 

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 my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

obummer

 

Former President Barack Obama says, “Fox News viewers and New York Times readers live in entirely different realities.”

“Whether it was (Walter) Cronkite or (David) Brinkley or what have you, there was a common set of facts, a baseline around which both parties had to adapt and respond to,” Obama said during a speech at Rice University, in Houston, Texas.

Excuse me Mr. President…, but Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley?  Really?  Cronkite last anchored CBS nightly news over 37 years ago, and Brinkley last co-anchored NBC nightly news over 39 years ago!

What this means is that none of the students at Rice University had any idea of who you were talking about!  And actually, you were only 18 years old yourself when Walter Cronkite retired!  You are two years younger than me, so I have a pretty good idea about how much of these guys you remember…, and it isn’t much, believe me.

It seems like you long for the days when “there was a common set of facts, a baseline around which both parties had to adapt.”

This statement seems quite odd to me.  Aren’t “the facts” “the facts,” regardless of who happens to be reporting the news?

What former President Obama is really saying is it was easier for the mainstream media (there were only three TV news outlets at that time, CBS, NBC and ABC) and the government establishment to control the news that was fed to the common people.  They were the ones who determined what “the facts” were, along with The Associated Press (AP), The Washington Post and The New York Times.

President Obama continued by saying, “And by the time I take office, what you increasingly have is a media environment in which if you are a Fox News viewer, you have an entirely different reality than if you are a New York Times reader.”

That’s right Mr. President, because in one case you have a news outlet which tries to be “fair and balanced” and another that promotes the liberal agenda and ideology.

“If you’re somebody who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in a while.  If you’re a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on The Huffington Post website.  It may make your blood boil, your mind may not be changed.  But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship.  It is essential for our democracy,” he said.

It doesn’t happen too often, but in this case of your last statement here, I would actually tend to agree with the former president.  Everything except the part about checking out The Huffington Post!  It doesn’t get more blatantly biased and ignorant than The Huffington Post!

According to “The Independent” website, 64% of Americans surveyed in a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll said “the media” was responsible for dividing the nation rather than uniting it, and I would tend to agree, because it is the intent of the democrats to create divisions in our country, hence it is the mission of “the biased, liberal, mainstream media” to do so as well, although they would, of course, point to Fox News as the perpetrator of this “dividing,” since they have to divert any focus away from themselves.

In an apparent effort to lend additional credibility to himself, and throw shade onto President Trump and his administration, Mr. Obama went on to say that, “Not only did I not get indicted, nobody in my administration got indicted, which, by the way, was the only administration in modern history that can be said about.  In fact nobody came close to being indicted.  Partly because the people who joined us were there for the right reasons.”

OK…, timeout!

It is true that no one from your administration was indicted, but is not because they didn’t deserve to be indicted, it was because your Attorney Generals, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, were as crooked as the day is long, and they were mere puppets who did whatever they were instructed to do by you.

The former president points to a reason for this “blemishless” record as being, “Partly because the people who joined us were there for the right reasons.”

The “right reasons” of course being they were willing to do as they were told, while keeping their mouths shut.

In response to President Obama’s beliefs regarding “the news” that people are exposed to, I need to point out a few things.

One: the amount of people who read the editorial page of The New York Times is infinitesimal.  Likewise, The Wall Street Journal.

Two: the vast, vast, majority of people do not watch or listen to any kind of “news” on any kind of regular basis.

Three: Most, not all, but most, people rely on other people to do their thinking for them in families, in schools, at work, in neighborhoods, in unions, in communities and even in races and cultures. The fact of the matter is that there are very few people that can make an educated argument about any issue, besides regurgitating buzz words and reciting pre-scripted responses.

The truth is that people live in a myriad of different realities, and that is will never change.  If by some chance we ever get “boiled down” into only two different realities, we are in trouble.

Americans in general, in my opinion, need to do a better job of being informed on what’s going on around us.  It’s really kind of scary when we realize how much people don’t know and what they aren’t aware of.

Independent and well-informed thought by the people will guarantee our continued independence as a nation in the future.

 

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 my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

a new study shows

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑