What the heck has happened to Venezuela?!  I’ll break it down for you.

Let’s look at a basic and condensed timeline, pertaining to Venezuela, for starters:

1992 – Venezuela becomes the 3rd richest country in the western hemisphere, behind only the United States and Canada.

1993 – President Carlos Andrés Pérez is impeached for embezzlement of public funds.

1998 – A collapse in confidence in the existing parties saw the election of former coup-involved career officer Hugo Chávez and the launch of the Bolivarian Revolution and socialism. The “Bolivarian Revolution” refers to a left-wing populist social movement and political process in Venezuela led by the late Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, who founded the Fifth Republic Movement in 1997 and the United Socialist Party of Venezuela in 2007.

1999 – The “revolution” began when a “new” Constitution for Venezuela was written.

2001 – Venezuela voted for a socialist president to address “income inequality.”

venezuela 8

2004 – Private healthcare is completely socialized.

2007 – All higher education becomes “free.”

2009 – The private ownership of guns is banned.

2012 – Bernie Sanders is quoted as saying, “Venezuelans are living the American dream better than Americans.”

venezuela 6

2014 – Government opposition leaders are imprisoned.

2016 – Food shortages become a widespread problem.

venezuela 13

2017 – The Venezuelan constitution and elections are suspended.

2018 – The country’s economic policies lead to extreme hyperinflation, with an inflation rate of 1,370,000% by the end of the year.

2019 – It is estimated that more than 3 million people have fled Venezuela in recent years.

2019 – Venezuelan protesters are attacked and killed by their own government in order to suppress their dissidence.

 

Venezuela’s socialist governments have been in power since 1999, taking over the country at a time when Venezuela had huge inequality.

But the socialist polices brought in which aimed to help the poor backfired, and made the situation even worse, of course.  Companies now controlled by the government failed, and price controls to make basic goods more affordable to the poor by capping prices meant that Venezuelan businesses no longer found it profitable to produce them.  Eventually, the government subsidies of all facets of the economy were unsustainable.

In only 27 years Venezuela has turned a “rags to riches” story into a “riches to rags” story.

venezuela 5

Like Margaret Thatcher, the former Britsh Prime Minister once said, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

Does any of the Venezuela story sound familiar today in America?

There certainly appear to be some similarities in the early stages happening here.

venezuela 2

We see an impeachment happy democrat Congress trying to overturn a presidential election.

We see many democrat politicians and democrat presidential candidates calling for a new constitution or drastic changes to our existing one.

venezuela 10

We constantly hear democrat politicians and democrat presidential candidates touting government solutions for “income inequality,” don’t we?

venezuela 9

We hear democrat politicians and democrat presidential candidates calling for a complete government takeover of our healthcare system.

Many democrat politicians and democrat presidential candidates are proposing “free” college.

And lastly, we hear many democrat politicians and democrat presidential candidates calling for radical changes to our gun laws, changes to the 2nd amendment or the complete removal of our right to bear arms.

The intentions of the American democrat party are apparent.

The democrats want to destroy America as we know it.

venezuela 3

The choice here is painfully clear.

If you want to follow in Venezuela’s footsteps…, elect democrats.

It’s as simple as that.

The only people who benefit from a socialist government are those in government.

venezuela 7

They apparently long for power that badly that they are willing to turn everyone elses life into a living hell for their own sakes.

They can only do this if we let them, however.

Remember…, the Venezuelan people voted for what they got.

In the end…, it’s their own fault.

And in the end…, we’ll choose our own fate as well.

venezuela 12

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

So, what the heck is this “Green New Deal” anyway?

Well, first of all it’s NOT a law.  It’s more like a “game plan” or a “road map” to follow.

It’s a liberal/socialist/environmentalist manifesto in the same vein as the Communist Manifesto.

Yes…, that’s exactly what it is.

Let me be your guide about something you will be hearing about non-stop for a long time. The “biased, liberal, fake news media” will be getting their propaganda machine cranked up into overdrive for this one.

The people that put this “Green New Deal” resolution together were either high on drugs, extremely naive, extremely confused, stupid, or some combination of all of the above, in my opinion.

So…, let’s see exactly what we have here.

This resolution validates all of its proposed actions based on the October 2018 report entitled “Special Report on Global Warming [of 1.5 degrees centigrade]” by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the November 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment report.

If the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to be believed, humanity has just over a decade to get carbon emissions under control before catastrophic climate change impacts become unavoidable.

At the rate our government works, I guess we should all start planning our funerals, or preparing to live underground, and stockpiling food and water, because nothing is going to happen over the next ten years to fix our environment, if in fact it is broken, and if in fact it is our fault.

The United States is already the most environmentally friendly country, among major industrialized nations in the world by the way.  You sure wouldn’t know this by the way the “biased, liberal, fake news media” demonizes the USA on a daily basis.  Is China, Russia, India, Germany, The United Kingdom or Japan on board with any of this?  Because we surely cannot effect global climate change without global participation.

If the Paris Climate Agreement is any indication of the level of global participation we could expect, we’re in trouble!

In the Paris Climate Agreement, which President Trump wisely backed the U.S. out of, all of these other countries pledged their support with flowery environmental words and swore to meet the new pollution regulations AFTER the U.S. had piloted the proposed pollution levels for the first 10-20 years of the agreement!

Such determination!

Such support!

Such disingenuousness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The resolution consists of a preamble, five goals, 14 projects, and 15 requirements. The preamble establishes that there are two crises, a climate crisis and an economic crisis of wage stagnation and growing inequality.

The goals are: achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, creating jobs, providing for a just transition, and securing clean air and water.

The projects are things like: decarbonizing electricity, transportation, and industry, restoring ecosystems, and upgrading buildings and electricity grids.

Our liberal/socialist/environmentalist friends have managed to incorporate virtually all aspects of our society, economy, employment, racial issues, gender issues and government into their “end all, be all” “primary directive.”

The document itself is not even 14 pages long, so please, read it for yourself if you get the chance.

In the meantime, let’s take a look at some excerpts taken directly from the resolution:

“Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’); Whereas, climate change constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States…”

Say what?

Are you starting to get the point?

This new Raw Deal…, I mean Green Deal, is your typical “bleeding heart” bunch of politically correct mumbo jumbo.

Here are some of the more detailed goals taken directly from the resolution:

“Upgrade all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”

Well gee…, that doesn’t sound expensive at all.

“Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry.”

What exactly is meant by “spurring?”  I’m guessing it means spending more money.

“Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible…”

“Working collaboratively” mean dictating unmanageable pollution standards.

“Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and high-speed rail.”

“Overhauling transportation systems” sounds like a lot of money…, again.

“A Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses…”

This last part is just a bunch concepts that sound good, but will never actually happen.  Just like with The Affordable Care Act legislation, there will be nothing inclusive or transparent about it.

“To achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects:”

“Providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization.”

“Making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries; directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries.”

Mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money!!!

“Ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level; ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition.”

“Ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers” means only selected “enlightened” liberal individuals and groups will dictate to all of the rest of us “knuckle-draggers” what to think.

“Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”

In the government world “Guaranteeing” something means there will be no budgetary concerns.

“Strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment; strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors.”

“Enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections, to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States.”

Hasn’t President Trump already pretty much taken care of this one?

“Ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused.”

This means eminent domain will be abused.

“Obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous people for all decisions that affect indigenous people and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous people, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous people.”

Here’s your “bone” Native-Americans!

“Ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and providing all people of the United States with: high-quality health care; affordable, safe, and adequate housing; economic security; and access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”

This last section, and the last section of the resolution, is kind of a catch-all.

According to David Roberts for Vox.com, “The question of how to pay for the many public investments called for in the GND [Green New Deal] is still a bit of a political minefield. There are centrist Democrats who still believe in the old PAYGO rules, keeping a “balanced budget” within a 10-year window. There are Democrats who think deficit fears have been exaggerated and there’s nothing wrong with running a deficit to drive an economic transition. And there are Democrats who have gone full Modern Monetary Theory, which is way too complicated to explain here but amounts to the notion that, short of inflation, the level of the deficit is effectively irrelevant, as long as we’re getting the economy we want.  That discussion is just getting underway, and the better part of valor is to do what the GND resolution does: say nothing about it. Leave it for later.”

Just in case you’re keeping score at home, the Green New Deal includes a “federal job guarantee,” the right to unionize, liberal trade and monopoly policies, and universal housing and health care.

In other words, “Hello Socialism…, here we come!”

Some of this stuff is even too far left for Nancy Pelosi!  She is actually coming under some attack for even having the slightest bit of skepticism about some of the goals in the Green New Deal!

Remember the name Rhiana Gunn-Wright.  She has apparently been tabbed to be the architect of any official policy platforms developed from the Green New Deal resolution.

“Obviously, figuring out how to fundamentally transform the world’s largest economy is a lot for one person to take on. When Gunn-Wright was asked if she knows what she’s gotten into, she laughs. “It’s really exciting!”

Do you mind if I ask if this person has ever really done anything regarding any of this stuff, or is she just working from a theoretical stand point?  Has she ever had a non-political job?  Does she really know anything about economics?

“If you have more money or access to power, you can either opt out or pay to make it simpler,” she says. “The people who will have to go through all the mess are generally poorer people, with the least access to power.”

So it’ll be just like usual…, with the rich liberal entertainers, athletes, businessmen and politicians being exempt or being able to “buy” their way out of the policies the rest of us are forced to deal with.  Again…, “do as I say not as I do.”

David Roberts for Vox.com Thinks, “Gunn-Wright’s command of the issues, coupled with her unapologetic belief in the public sector to “shape markets and direct innovation,” coupled with her evident concern for the low-income and working classes, make me excited to see what New Consensus produces.”

So…, apparently Mr. Roberts is just as clueless as the authors of the resolution, Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ms. Gunn-Wright and all of their partners in crime.

Ocasio-Cortez calls for 100 percent renewable electricity within 10 years, but very few policy experts believe that is possible.

By their own admission, the top three challenges facing the GND are paying for it, convincing the public, and winning over Democrats.

Roberts adds, “In the real world, if the GND looks like it has any chance of becoming a reality, it will face a giant right-wing smear campaign, coordinated across conservative media, think tanks, and politicians, funded by effectively unlimited fossil fuel wealth. The right will rush to define the GND as a silly, ridiculous, naive, unaffordable government boondoggle meant to destroy your way of life and funnel your taxpayer money to Democratic constituencies like illegal immigrants.”

That’s because, Mr. Roberts, the Green New Deal IS “a silly, ridiculous, naive, unaffordable government boondoggle meant to destroy your way of life and funnel your taxpayer money to Democratic constituencies like illegal immigrants.”

Trumpeting the truth about this foolishness is not a “right-wing smear campaign,” it’s just a matter of combating the propaganda of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” and the rest of “the swamp.”

Well, there you have it.  I hope this helped.

Like I said…, we’re not going to stop hearing about the Green New Deal anytime soon.

 

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.

ocasio-cortez inventions

 

Let the 2020 election games begin!

On one side we have President Trump…, and on the other side, the democrat side, we have an absolute, clueless, hot mess, with the goal of beating President Trump AT ANY COST.

But this may become a three-sided race if prior CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, decides to run for president in 2020 as an Independent candidate.

And Howard Schultz would be an interesting candidate.

What’s so interesting about him you ask?

Well…, let me tell ya.

First of all…, Howard Schultz would be running as an Independent candidate, even though he endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential campaign.

As most of us know by now…, labeling yourself as an “Independent,” politically, means you’re basically a liberal, and basically a democrat, but you want to set yourself aside to make yourself appear more independent, although really you’re not.

From what I’ve heard, Howard Schultz seems to talk a pretty good game, however.

According to Brittany De Lea for Fox Business, “Schultz called himself the ‘poster child of the American dream’ during an interview with CNN last May, having grown up in subsidized housing in Brooklyn to eventually becoming the chief executive of one of the nation’s largest and most prominent coffee and beverage chains.”

That’s a positive for him.  Americans likes success stories.

‘“You have to ask yourself about the promise of America and the American dream,’ Schultz said.  ‘And if it’s not available to everybody, if people feel as if the color of their skin or their station in life is not going to provide them the same opportunity as someone who is white and who has a better zip code then the country is not going to succeed in terms of its long-term aspirations.’”

Oh, that’s good!  Having the proper amount of “white guilt” is definitely a requirement of the left.  No one is going to argue with his basic point either.  Americans generally like someone with a sense of fairness.

“Schultz has been critical of the national debt, which is currently more than $21 trillion.  He said during a June interview with ‘Time’ the government needs a ‘centrist approach’ to spending. ‘There’s no for-profit business in the world that could sustain itself or survive with $20 trillion in debt,’ he said. ‘And we can’t keep pushing this. … It’s just not responsible.’”

I think most reasonable people would tend to agree with him here as well.

Schultz has been critical of President Trump, and during an interview with CBS, Schultz said Trump was “not qualified” to be president.

“We’re living at a most fragile time, not only the fact that this president is not qualified to be the president, but the fact that both parties are consistently not doing what’s necessary on behalf of the American people,” Schultz told “60 Minutes” recently.

This statement is where he runs into some problems.  If President Trump isn’t qualified to be president, then what makes him qualified to be president?

He does quickly tie-in the problem of both major parties “not doing what’s necessary on behalf of the American people,” however, which most people would agree with as well.

The “60 Minutes” appearance didn’t go as smoothly as expected, however.  As Schultz began to speak, on another topic, he was interrupted by a heckler, who was eventually escorted out by security.

“Don’t help elect Trump, you egotistical billionaire a–hole,” the protester shouted. “Go back to getting ratioed [“Ratioed” is new social media term that refers to the negative response that a tweet gets.] on Twitter. Go back to Davos with the other billionaire elite who think they know how to run the world. That’s not what democracy means.”

That’s pretty harsh, and pretty elitist, with the reference to “Davos” (Davos, Switzerland, plays host to the World Economic Forum, an annual meeting of global political and business élites) and the attempt to own what “democracy” means while accusing others of trying to “run the world.”

This wasn’t your average run of the mill heckler.  He was hired and planted there by somebody, I would guess.

Julia Limitone, of FOX Business, reports that, “Schultz is also being criticized by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is also considering a 2020 run as a Democrat.  In a [recent] Tweet, the billionaire lambasted third-party candidates saying they would help re-elect Trump.”

‘“In 2020, the great likelihood is that an independent would just split the anti-Trump vote and end up re-electing the President,’ he said.”

So, just in case anybody didn’t already realize this, Mr. Bloomberg is officially sounding the alarm.

“Although Schultz has described himself as a ‘lifelong Democrat’ he isn’t connecting with some ideas floated by members of the democrat party [indicating he has a fully functional brain], especially newly minted house Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s tax plan.”

‘“I think I respect the Democratic Party.  I no longer feel affiliated because I don’t think their views represent the majority of Americans,’ he said. ‘I don’t think we want a 70 percent income tax in America and I certainly don’t think we can afford the things they are suggesting.’”

It appears that Schultz, based on what he says at least, is more aligned with the democrats, socially, but more aligned with conservatives, and basic common sense, economically.  He’s trying to walk an ideological tightrope here.

According to Megan Henney, of FOX Business, “Ex-Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz [thinks] every American has the right to affordable health care,” but that, “…he wouldn’t feel comfortable running for office as a Democrat.”

Get ready to watch the “barbecuing” of Howard Schultz begin!

Even though Howard Schultz leans to “the left,” and describes himself as a “lifelong Democrat,” he is now the second most dangerous person in the country, right behind President Trump, from “the swamp’s” point of view.

This is because it is believed he would take votes from the establishment liberal democrat candidate, thus helping President Trump win the election.

Mr. Schultz is putting a big target on his back.

The attacks on him by the democrats and the “biased, liberal, fake news media” will only be rivaled by the on-going attacks on President Trump.

“The swamp” has already started the attack on him by questioning and pointing out how much of his fortune he contributes to charity.

Megan Henney continues by saying, “The 65-year-old billionaire has drawn ire since announcing that he’s mulling a presidential bid for his criticism of wealth tax plans proposed by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who announced her own presidential bid this month, that are intended to reduce income inequality in the U.S.”

‘“However, when I see Elizabeth Warren come out with a ridiculous plan of taxing wealthy people a surtax of 2 percent because it makes a good headline or sends out a tweet when she knows for a fact that’s not something that’s ever gonna be passed, this is what’s wrong,’ he said during an interview on NPR’s ‘Morning Edition.’ ‘You can’t just attack these things in a punitive way by punishing people.’”

“Schultz, who stepped down as CEO of Starbucks in 2017, would likely be subject to Warren’s ‘ultra-millionaire tax,’ which would create a 2 percent wealth tax on people with more than $50 million assets and a 3 percent tax on people with more than $1 billion.”

So, he’s openly attacking the socialist’s…, ooops, I mean the democrat’s newest rising star, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and her sister in mind and spirit, Elizabeth Warren?

He’s got guts…, I’ll give him that…, but he’s putting himself at odds with the PC and socialist “group think” mob who only believes in free speech if that speech agrees with their beliefs and political agenda.

While the horde of potential 2020 democrat candidates compete to see who is willing to give away the most money in order to win the election, Mr. Schultz may actually be the liberals “voice of reason,” and their best chance at defeating President Trump.

But of course, “the swamp” isn’t actually interested about doing what’s right for America.  Their only interested in gaining control and gaining power.

So, they, “the swamp,” will chew up and spit out Mr. Schultz in short order and quickly get back to the business of beating President trump AT ALL COSTS.

If he does officially announce he’s running for president, I’m sure we’ll see the usual playbook pulled out, which will include charges of inappropriate dealings with women, inappropriate money dealings, and charges of racism if needed.

“Vox,” (“Vox” is an American news and opinion website owned by Vox Media.) recently ran an article titled, “Dear billionaires: stop running for president,” in reference to Mr. Schultz.  It’s funny, but they didn’t seem to have an issue with Oprah running for president when she was out their floating the idea.

You’re only an “acceptable” billionaire if you can manage to check off the appropriate “swampy” boxes.

It’s quite amazing actually, because it wasn’t much more than a year ago, Howard Schultz was the toast of “liberal town,” while, “Investors warn a ‘liberal agenda’ is killing Starbucks’s business,” according to Clint Rainey for New York Magazine.

While Howard Schultz was still at the helm of Starbuck’s, he tried to “mix coffee with social justice.” His refugee hiring plan, which came in reaction to President Trump’s travel ban, ignited a pretty swift conservative backlash and a pretty swift liberal “seal of approval.”

The company’s investors, “Were demanding that Starbucks [Schultz] rethink its ‘liberal political stances,’ and just in general stop the ‘attacks on President Donald Trump.’ They [the investors] argue that Schultz in particular is ‘obviously’ liberal, ‘perhaps even anti-conservative,’ and worry the CEO’s politics have tainted the brand for consumers who disagree ideologically, in turn causing the brand’s public perception to seriously plummet, which surveys show has happened, and which is never a good thing for sales numbers.”

It seems that Howard Schultz should have qualified as being “far left” enough…, but that was over a year ago, and the democrats have moved even further to the left.

So, in the final analysis here, Howard Shultz could have been a pretty formidable democrat candidate, if he wasn’t so reasonable.

It seems that reason won’t get you anywhere in the democrat party these days.

 

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.

howard schultz

This might be the most historic new law you never heard about.

On October 24, 2018, President Donald Trump signed a bipartisan bill aimed at tackling the nation’s growing opioid epidemic.

America’s new opioid law is being called “historic in its breadth.”

The fact of the matter is, it is a historic law, and a law that is long overdue.

It’s a type of law that neither President Barack Obama nor President George W. Bush before him had any interest in fighting for while they were president. George W. was more interested in fighting in the Middle East, and Barack Obama was more interested in fighting the climate.

In all fairness, the congresses during the Bush and Obama years weren’t responsive to, or particularly interested in this issue either.

While all of this was going on, people across our country, from every social, economic and cultural strata were crying out for help in battling this insidious epidemic that knew no political affiliation or ideology.

It took the “divisive” and the “uncaring” President Donald J. Trump to stand up and champion this issue on behalf of Americans in every state and every city and town across this country.

This is the reason you may not have heard much about this new law.  It has President Trump’s fingerprints all over it, and the “biased, liberal, fake news media” cannot bring itself to give President Trump credit for anything positive in nature.

Had this law been passed on Obama’s watch, it would have been “trumpeted,” no pun intended, by every “biased, liberal, fake news media” outlet in the land, as an answer to our prayers and as an example of how bipartisan cooperation can be accomplished.

The opioid legislation, officially titled “The Substance-Use Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act,” indicates clear progress in America’s fight against opioid addiction and treatment.

“The legislation is historic in its breadth and commitment to the problem,” Brett Giroir, assistant secretary for health and senior advisor for Opioid Policy at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told Yahoo Finance. “Whether it’s enough, it’s what we know to do right now.  It’s the right legislation at the right time.”

“The new law targets over-prescription and opioid trafficking.  While most of the specific costs are still unknown, the law directs $500 million a year toward the opioid crisis, and makes tweaks to hopefully give states more flexibility in using the funding.”

A key provision of the bill is the continuance of state opioid grants through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). “This adds hundreds of millions of dollars to the states to treat [opioid abuse],” said Giroir.

“There are mothers who suffer from opioid abuse and providing medication assisted treatments to the mother helps them and dramatically decreases complications for the babies.”

Babies born to mothers suffering opioid abuse are at risk of developing neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), a form of drug withdrawal. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, there were an estimated 21,732 infants born from 2000 to 2012 with NAS, “equivalent to one baby suffering from opiate withdrawal born every 25 minutes.”

The number of deaths related to opioids has dramatically increased over the last 15 years. The new opioid legislation aims to curb this.

Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway recently described the epidemic as “the crisis next door,” which is why the new opioid legislation made so much sense.  “I think part of why it passed in a bipartisan fashion is because everybody sees the need back at home.  Whether you represent a state or a congressional district, you just see the need back at home.  Law enforcement, access to treatment.  Certainly, education and prevention.”

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), “more than 200,000 people died in the U.S. from overdoses related to prescription opioids from 1999 to 2016.” In 2017, nearly 49,000 people died from opioid-related overdoses, with synthetic opioid fentanyl being the biggest driver.

Giroir said that the HHS is “constantly looking for new ways” to attack the opioid problem, the next step, he said, is increasing the availability of naloxone, an opioid reversal drug.

I’m sure there will be critics of this new law, but at least we have something out there now that we can even be critical of.

Thank you President Trump for one more “promise kept.”

 

Thank you to Adriana Belmonte, an associate editor for Yahoo Finance News 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 my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

opioid crisis chart

You can have “softballs” or real questions President Obama…, and we’re all out of “softballs!”

President Barack Obama sat down with Bill O’Reilly, February 2, 2014, prior to the Super Bowl, to discuss an array of topics.

As we read over the selected portions of the transcripts for this two-part interview, the difference between how President Trump answers questions and how President Obama answers questions becomes very apparent, very quickly.

Donald Trump is not a politician at heart, and Barack Obama is.  This is something we should all be able to acknowledge.

Donald Trump actually answers questions that are posed to him.  Barack Obama dances around questions, manipulates the English language, and tries to dodge tough questions altogether.  In some cases he even chooses to be deceitful.

President Obama seems upset that someone is actually asking him these questions, as the “biased, liberal, fake news media” regularly gives him a pass on all of this “uncomfortable stuff.”

Since none of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” (CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, et al) chose to “hyper analyze” President Obama’s interview at the time, no one really did, I have decided to perform this community service in retrospect.

NOTE:  My comments will be inserted as “MER,” for MrEricksonRules.

Let’s take a look at this first part of the interview, regarding the rollout of the Obamacare Healthcare.gov website, Benghazi and the IRS scandal.

 

O’REILLY:  I want to get some things on the record.  So let’s begin with health care.

OBAMA:  Yes?

O’REILLY:  October 1st it rolls out.

OBAMA:  Right.

O’REILLY:  Immediately, there are problems with the computers.

OBAMA:  Right.

MER:  We have now experienced three honest and straight forward answers in a row.  It’s all downhill from here.

O’REILLY:  When did you know there were going to be problems with those computers?

OBAMA:  Well, I think we all anticipated there would be glitches, because any time you’ve got technology, a new program rolling out, there are going to be some glitches.  I don’t think I anticipated or anybody anticipated the degree of the problems with the Web site.  And…

MER:  Having been a software developer at one point, there doesn’t have to be an expectations of “glitches,” if the system is properly tested.  In order to properly test a system, it helps to have “users’ who ae competent and intelligent, as well as software developers who are competent and professional.  In this case, it would appear that we had neither.

O’REILLY:  So you just didn’t know when it rolled out that this was going to be…

OBAMA:  Well, I don’t think…

O’REILLY:  — a problem?

OBAMA:  — as I said, I don’t think anybody anticipated the degree of problems that you had on HealthCare.gov.  The good news is that right away, we decided how are we going to fix it, it got fixed within a month and a half, it was up and running and now it’s working the way it’s supposed to and we’ve signed up three million people.

MER: That is good news that you were able to decide how to fix it.  I’m shaking my head right now.  Oh…, and it only took a month and a half to fix it?!  Like I said, I was a software developer at one point, and this Healtcare.gov program does not seem to be a particularly complex program.  So who were these clowns that were responsible for developing this software, and why were they selected?  The company’s name is CGI Federal, and it’s owned by a Canadian firm, CGI Group.  CGI had done work in the healthcare arena before, and not all of it good.  Its performance on Ontario, Canada’s health-care medical registry for diabetes sufferers was so poor that officials ditched the $46.2 million contract after three years of missed deadlines.  Two good questions would be, why was an American company not selected, and why was this company selected, given its poor track record?  My guess is it would have something to do with campaign contributions, but I’m just cynical that way.

O’REILLY:  I don’t know about that [that it’s working the way it’s supposed to], because last week, there was an Associated Press call of people who actually went to the Web site and only 8 percent of them feel that it’s working well.

Why didn’t you fire Sebelius [Kathleen Sebelius was serving as the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services], the secretary in charge of this…

OBAMA:  (INAUDIBLE).

MER:  Excuse me…, what was that?

O’REILLY:  — because I mean she had to know, after all those years and all that money, that it wasn’t going to work?

MER: She was obviously clueless like all the rest of them in this administration.  There was absolutely NO excuse for this debacle.

OBAMA:  You know, my main priority right now is making sure that it delivers for the American people.  And what we…

O’REILLY:  You’re not going to answer that?

OBAMA:  — what, what we’ve ended up doing is we’ve got three million people signed up so far.  We’re about a month behind of where we anticipated we wanted to be.  We’ve got over six million people who have signed up for Medicaid.

(MRE: No, he’s not going to answer that.)

O’REILLY:  Yes.

OBAMA:  We’ve got three million young people under the age of 26 who have signed up on their parents’ plan.  And so what we’re constantly figuring out is how do we continue to improve it, how do we make sure that the folks who don’t have health insurance can get health insurance…

O’REILLY:  OK…

OBAMA:  — and those who are underinsured are able to get better health insurance.

O’REILLY:  I’m sure, I’m sure that the intent is noble, but I’m a taxpayer.

MER:  I would have to differ with you at this point O’Reilly.  I’m sure the intent is anything but noble.

OBAMA:  Yes.

O’REILLY:  And I’m paying Kathleen Sebelius’ salary and she screwed up.

OBAMA:  Yes.

O’REILLY:  And you’re not holding her accountable.

OBAMA:  Yes, well, I…, I promise you that we hold everybody up and down the line accountable.  But when we’re…

MER:  That’s a lie.

O’REILLY:  But she’s still there.

OBAMA:  — when we’re in midstream, Bill, we want to make sure that our main focus is how do we make this thing work so that people are able to sign up?  And that’s what we’ve done.

O’REILLY:  All right.

Was it the biggest mistake of your presidency to tell the nation over and over, if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance?

OBAMA:  Oh, Bill, you’ve got a long list of my mistakes of my presidency…

MER: I wouldn’t call it a “long list of mistakes,” seeing this is only the second “mistake” that he’s addressing.)

O’REILLY:  But, no, really, for you…

OBAMA:  — as I’ve (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY:  — wasn’t that the biggest one?

OBAMA:  But this is, this is one that I regret and I’ve said I regretted, in part because we put in a grandfather clause in the original law saying that, in fact, you were supposed to be able to keep it.  It obviously didn’t cover everybody that we needed to and that’s why we changed it, so that we further grandfathered in folks and many people who thought originally, when they got that cancellation notice, they couldn’t keep it or not (INAUDIBLE)…

MER: Ah hah!  The old, dreaded, double grandfathered law scenario!  Nice try President Obama.  We all knew that was a lie, and so did you.  You repeated this lie to the American people well over twenty times!  “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.  Period!”  There didn’t seem to be any concern about some “clause in the original law” then.  Please note that the “biased, liberal, fake news media” completely looked the other way on this one.  Not one “biased, liberal, fake news media” outlet so much as made mention of President Obama’s faulty claims or questioned them at the time.  Can you imagine if President Trump had made a similar type of claim?  Exactly.

O’REILLY:  It’s in the past.  But isn’t that the…

OBAMA:  So…

O’REILLY:  — biggest mistake?

OBAMA:  Well, I, you know, Bill, as I said…

O’REILLY:  You gave your enemies…

OBAMA:  You…

O’REILLY:  — a lot of fodder for it.

OBAMA:  — you were very generous in saying I look pretty good considering I’ve been in the presidency for five years.  And I think part of the reason is, I try to focus not on the fumbles, but on the next plan.

MER:  That’s probably wise.  It would be hard to even attempt to focus on the vast array of fumbles swirling around you!

O’REILLY:  All right.

Libya, House Armed Services testimony, General Carter Ham, you know, the general?

OBAMA:  Yes.  Right.

O’REILLY:  Security in Africa.

OBAMA:  Yes.

O’REILLY:  He testified that on the day that the ambassador was murdered and the three other Americans, all right, he told Secretary Panetta it was a terrorist attack.  Shortly after Ham, General Ham, said that, Secretary Panetta came in to you.

OBAMA:  Yes.

O’REILLY:  Did he tell you, Secretary Panetta, it was a terrorist attack?

OBAMA:  You know what he told me was that there was an attack on our compound…

O’REILLY:  He didn’t tell you…

OBAMA:  — (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY:  — he didn’t use the word “terror?”

OBAMA:  You know, in — in the heat of the moment, Bill, what folks are focused on is what’s happening on the ground, do we have eyes on it, how can we make sure our folks are secure…

O’REILLY:  Because I just want to get this on the record…

OBAMA:  So, I…

O’REILLY:  — did he tell you it was a terror attack?

OBAMA:  Bill — and what I’m — I’m answering your question.  What he said to me was, we’ve got an attack on our compound.  We don’t know yet…

O’REILLY:  No terror attack?

OBAMA:  — we don’t know yet who’s doing it.  Understand, by definition, Bill, when somebody is attacking our compound…

O’REILLY:  Yes?

OBAMA:  — that’s an act of terror, which is how I characterized it the day after it happened.  So the — so the question ends up being who, in fact, was attacking us?

O’REILLY:  But it’s more than that…

OBAMA:  And that…

O’REILLY:  — though…

OBAMA:  — well, we…

O’REILLY:  — because of Susan Rice.

OBAMA:  No, it…

O’REILLY:  It’s more than that because if Susan Rice goes out and tells the world that it was a spontaneous demonstration…

MER:  Ah yes…, “clueless” Susan Rice.  President Obama’s talking puppet of choice.  Her performances on the Sunday talk shows was especially “swampy” in this case.

OBAMA:  Bill…

O’REILLY:  — off a videotape but your…

OBAMA:  Bill…

O’REILLY:  — your commanders and the secretary of Defense know it’s a terror attack…

OBAMA:  Now, Bill…

O’REILLY:  Just…

OBAMA:  — Bill…

O’REILLY:  — as an American…

OBAMA:  — Bill — Bill…

MER:  That’s seven “Bills,” just to be clear.

O’REILLY:  — I’m just confused.

OBAMA:  And I’m — and I’m trying to explain it to, if you want to listen.  The fact of the matter is, is that people understood, at the time, something very dangerous was happening, that we were focused on making sure that we did everything we can — could — to protect them.  In the aftermath, what became clear was that the security was lax, that not all the precautions and — that needed to be taken were taken and both myself and Secretary Clinton and others indicated as much.

But at the moment, when these things happen, Bill, on the other side of the world, people…

O’REILLY:  It’s the fog of war…

OBAMA:  — people — that’s — people don’t know at the very moment exactly why something like this happens.  And when you look at the videotape of this whole thing unfolding, this is not some systematic, well organized process.  You see…

MER:  It was the anniversary of 9/11.  That’s why something like this happens.  On the anniversary of 9/11 all of our foreign entities, especially those in Muslim countries, should be on a heightened state of alert, and response forces around the world should be on a heightened state of readiness as well.  This was just another demonstration of the Obama administration’s ineptitude

O’REILLY:  Well, it was heavy weapons used…

OBAMA:  — you…

O’REILLY:  — and that…

OBAMA:  — what you…

O’REILLY:  — that’s the thing…

OBAMA:  — what you see — Bill…

O’REILLY:  — heavy weapons coming in.

OBAMA:  — Bill, listen, I — I — I’ve gone through this and we have had multiple hearings on it.  What happens is you have an attack like this taking place and you have a mix of folks who are just troublemakers.  You have folks who have an ideological agenda.

MER:  Just for the record Mr. President, they’re called “radical Islamic terrorists.”  They’re not only “a mix of folks who are just troublemakers.”  These aren’t some frat boys trashing a dorm.

O’REILLY:  All right.

OBAMA:  You have some who are affiliated with terrorist organizations.  You have some that are not.  But the main thing that all of us have to take away from this is our diplomats are serving in some very dangerous places.

MER:  Reeeeeally?!

O’REILLY:  But there’s more…

OBAMA:  And we’ve got…

O’REILLY:  — there’s more than that…

OBAMA:  — and we’ve got — and we’ve got to make sure that not only have we implemented all the reforms that were recommended…

MER:  I believe the reforms that were recommended were, one: pull your head out of your arse, and two, try using common sense once in a while.  They didn’t even bother to recommend putting the country or the American people ahead of your political ambitions because it just didn’t occur to them that “that” was an option!

O’REILLY:  OK.

OBAMA:  — by the independent agency…

O’REILLY:  I…

OBAMA:  — but we also have to make sure that we understand our folks out there are in a hazardous, dangerous situation…

O’REILLY:  I think everybody understands that…

MER:  Yes, we do understand that.

OBAMA:  — and we…

O’REILLY:  — Mr. President.

OBAMA:  No, but — but, actually, not everybody does, because what ends up happening…

MER:  Apparently everybody does…, except you and your administration, Mr. President!

O’REILLY:  I think they do.

OBAMA:  — what ends up happening is we end up creating a political agenda…

MER:  Just to be clear…, that is ALL you and your friends do is create and manage your political agenda.

O’REILLY:  Absolutely…

OBAMA:  — over something…

O’REILLY:  — and that’s…

OBAMA:  — (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY:  — that was my next question.

OBAMA:  — which Democrats and Republicans should be unified in trying to figure out how are we going to protect people (INAUDIBLE)?

O’REILLY:  I’ve got to get to the IRS…

OBAMA:  OK.

O’REILLY:  — but I just want to say that they’re — your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn’t want that out.

MER:  Bingo!

OBAMA:  Bill, think about…

O’REILLY:  That’s what they believe.

OBAMA:  — and they believe it because folks like you are telling them that.

MER:  Are you calling Bill O’Reilly and Fox News “fake news” Mr. President?

O’REILLY:  No, I’m not telling them that.

(LAUGHTER)

MER:  I do believe he is calling you “fake news,” O’Reilly!

O’REILLY:  I’m asking you whether you were told…

OBAMA:  But — and what I’m saying is…

O’REILLY:  — it was a terror attack and you…

OBAMA:  — and what I’m saying is that is inaccurate.

O’REILLY:  All right.

OBAMA:  We, we revealed to the American people exactly what we understood at the time.  The notion that we would hide the ball for political purposes when, a week later, we all said, in fact, there was a terrorist attack taking place the day after, I said it was an act of terror, that wouldn’t be a very good cover-up…

MER: The Benghazi attack took place on Sept. 11, 2012 (on the anniversary of 9/11) and into Sept 12, 2012.  This was a good month and a half prior to the 2012 presidential election.  You and your administration, Mr. President, did in fact perpetrate a cover-up and the deception of the American people.

According to an article by Kelly Riddell, for The Washington Times, June, 28, 2016, “A post Benghazi report points out Obama, Clinton lies.”

The scandal of Benghazi, and yes it was a scandal, reflects the effort by the Obama administration to deflect attention from failed American foreign policy and the rise of terrorism, through a conscious spin effort that hid the truth from the American public.

According to the House Benghazi report, “The Obama administration knew attacks on the consulate were because of terrorism, but they knowingly changed the narrative to blame an ‘inflammatory’ viral video, to escape any culpability of the attacks so close to a November election. In the 2012 campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly spoke of not only killing Osama bin Laden, but how Al Qaeda had been ‘decimated’ under his watch.  Any word Benghazi was actually a terrorist attack would undermine this narrative.”

In her first public comment on the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, Mrs. Clinton blamed the attack on a viral video.

“I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today,” said Mrs. Clinton, then secretary of state. “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

The next day, Mrs. Clinton told the American public the administration was “working to determine the precise motivations” of those who carried out the assaults, but that “some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.”

Privately, she told the Egyptian Prime minister: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest. … Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”

Another day goes by, and publicly Mrs. Clinton continues to blame the internet video in her remarks in Morocco.

On Sept. 14, White House spokesman Jay Carney, answering a question about Benghazi during a press conference, said: “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy.”

This was a blatant lie.  But it was spin directed from the top, Mr. Obama’s and Mrs. Clinton’s political future was at stake, after all.

An email sent to officials from White House foreign policy adviser Benjamin Rhodes, with the subject line, “goals,” shows the Benghazi narrative was: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

But IT WAS a broader failure of U.S. policy!

CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell said in a written statement to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence a few days later, “The critically important point is that the analysts considered this a terror attack from the very beginning.”

Mrs. Clinton blamed her changing public statements on differing intelligence reports she received in real-time.  But there’s no evidence to suggest Mrs. Clinton had anything but clarity, right from the evening of the attack, that it was indeed terrorism.

Her public and private statements remained consistently at odds with each other. Privately, there was no doubt the attack was terrorism; publicly, it was blamed on a video and protesting, despite there being no eyewitness accounts of a protest.

She knew. The administration knew. But it wasn’t politically expedient to admit.  So a lie was created, the narrative set, and everyone stuck to it.

MER:  At this point, what difference does it make!?  Oh…, I’m sorry Hillary…, that was your line!

O’REILLY:  I’ve got to get to the IRS…

OBAMA:  Yes.

O’REILLY:  — because I don’t know what happened there and I’m hoping maybe you can tell us.  Douglas Shulman, former IRS chief, he was cleared into the White House 157 times, more than any of your cabinet members, more than any other IRS guy in the history, by far.

OK, why was Douglas Shulman here 157 times?

Why?

OBAMA:  Mr. Shulman, as the head of the IRS, is constantly coming in, because at the time, we were trying to set up the, uh, HealthCare.gov and the IRS…

O’REILLY:  What did he have to do with that?

OBAMA:  — and the IRS is involved in making sure that that works as part of the overall health care team.

O’REILLY:  So it was all health care?

OBAMA:  Number two, we’ve also got the IRS involved when it comes to some of the financial reforms to make sure that we don’t have taxpayer funded bailouts in the future.  So you had all these different agendas in which the head of the IRS is naturally involved.

MER:  I wouldn’t say the head of the IRS should “naturally be involved” with anything other than collecting taxes, and certainly not with “taxpayer funded bailouts!”

O’REILLY:  Did you speak to him a lot…

OBAMA:  — (INAUDIBLE).

O’REILLY:  — yourself?

OBAMA:  I do not recall meeting with him in any of these meetings that are pretty routine meetings that we had.

MER:  Out of 157, that’s 157, visits to The White House, President Obama doesn’t “recall meeting with him in any of these meetings.”  Now that’s what I call a good example of “plausible deniability!”

O’REILLY:  OK, so you don’t — you don’t recall seeing Shulman, because what some people are saying is that the IRS was used…

OBAMA:  Yes.

O’REILLY:  — at a — at a local level in Cincinnati, and maybe other places to go after…

OBAMA:  Absolutely wrong.

O’REILLY:  — to go after.

OBAMA:  Absolutely wrong.

O’REILLY:  But how do you know that, because we — we still don’t know what happened there?

OBAMA:  Bill, we do — that’s not what happened.  They — folks have, again, had multiple hearings on this.  I mean these kinds of things keep on surfacing, in part because you and your TV station will promote them.

MER:  Yes, we remember these great hearings, highlighted by Lois Lerner and her refusal to testify, but somehow make a statement anyway.

O’REILLY:  But don’t…

OBAMA:  But when (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY:  — think there are unanswered questions?

OBAMA:  Bill, when you actually look at this stuff, there have been multiple hearings on it.  What happened here was it that you’ve got a…

O’REILLY:  But there’s no definition on it.

OBAMA:  — you’ve got a 501(c)(4) law that people think is focusing.  No — that the folks did not know how to implement…

O’REILLY:  OK…

OBAMA:  — because it basically says…

O’REILLY:  — so you’re saying there was no…

OBAMA:  — if you are involved…

O’REILLY:  — no corruption there at all, none?

OBAMA:  That’s not what I’m saying.

O’REILLY:  (INAUDIBLE).

OBAMA:  That’s actually…

O’REILLY:  No, no, but I want to know what…

OBAMA:  — (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY:  — you’re saying.  You’re the leader of the country.

OBAMA:  Absolutely.

O’REILLY:  You’re saying no corruption?

OBAMA:  No.

O’REILLY:  None?

OBAMA:  There were some — there were some bone-headed decisions…

MER:  Now that we can believe!

O’REILLY:  Bone-headed decisions…

OBAMA:  — out of — out of a local office…

O’REILLY:  But no mass corruption?

OBAMA:  Not even mass corruption, not even a smidgeon of corruption, I would say.

MER:  “Not even a smidgeon?”  The “biased, liberal, fake news media” even felt obligated to chime in regarding this obvious abuse of power:

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow said: “There is a reasonable fear by all of us, by any of us, that the kind of power the IRS has could be misused,” she further said that this scrutiny of Tea Party groups was “not fair.”

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart stated that the controversy “threw doubt on President Obama’s ‘managerial competence’ and had proven correct ‘conspiracy theorists.’”

ABC News’ Terry Moran wrote that this was: “A truly Nixonian abuse of power by the Obama administration.”

NBC’s White House correspondent Chuck Todd said, “It didn’t seem like they had a sense of urgency about it, a real sense of outrage,” and further; “This is outrageous no matter what political party you are.”

Even MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said, “This is tyranny,” and talked about “unspeakable abuses by the IRS.”

O’REILLY:  OK.  I got a letter from Kathy LaMaster (ph), Fresno, California.  I said I would read one letter from the folks, all right?

OBAMA:  All right.

O’REILLY:  “Mr. President, why do you feel it’s necessary to fundamentally transform the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity and success?”

OBAMA:  I don’t think we have to fundamentally transform the nation…

O’REILLY:  But those are your words.

MER:  Just because President Obama has said he wants to “fundamentally transform the nation,” numerous times in the past, this doesn’t mean he actually wants to do it, O’Reilly!

OBAMA:  I think that what we have to do is make sure that here in America, if you work hard, you can get ahead.  Bill, you and I benefitted from this incredible country of ours, in part, because there were good jobs out there that paid a good wage, because you had public schools that functioned well, that we could get scholarships if we didn’t come from a wealthy family, in order to go to college.

O’REILLY:  Right.

OBAMA:  That, you know, if you worked hard, not only did you have a good job, but you also had decent benefits, decent health care…

O’REILLY:  They’re cutting me off…

OBAMA:  — and for a lot of folks, we don’t have that.  We’ve got to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to expand the middle class…

MER:  President Obama’s idea of “expanding the middle class” is making sure everyone has a “good paying job” at a fast food restaurant, enrollment in Obamacare, and all the food stamps you can get your hands on, along with any other government benefits that may apply.

O’REILLY:  All right…

OBAMA:  — and work hard and people who are working hard can get into the middle class.

O’REILLY:  I think — I — you know, I know you think maybe we haven’t been fair, but I think your heart is in the right place.

MER:  Not even that is a fair statement, Mr. O’Reilly.

 

Please note that the full transcript of this interview is available on-line as well as the full video record of the interview.  Watch the video if you want to get the full effect of President Obama’s condescending tone which we all know and love!

 

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.

O'Really and obama cropped

 

What is The United States of America coming to?

Especially with the midterm elections coming up, I am constantly amazed by how close the majority of these races are.

I really have a hard time believing that right around half of my fellow Americans are preparing to vote for democrat Representatives and democrat Senators.

We have seen repeatedly that the democrats in Congress are held on a very short leash by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.  The party of “group think” is represented well by their liberal politicians, and they are severely ostracized if they wander off of the prescribed ideological reservation.

recovery

So what do the democrats want?  Let’s take a look.

Democrats want to double down and even triple down on nationalized health care.  Reinstating ObamaCare isn’t even acceptable for the democrats at this point.  They want complete government control of health care, at a cost that would double or triple our annual budget.

Of course, this would mean higher taxes, and when I say “higher taxes” I mean an ungodly increase of our taxes.

Democrats want “open borders.”  “Open borders” means anyone can come walking into our country from anywhere, at any time, and they assume all of the rights and benefits of an American citizen immediately upon entry.

There are a myriad of problems associated with this philosophy.  As President Trump says, “A country without borders is not a country.”  This concept sounds good while we’re sitting around, holding hands and singing “We Are the World,” but it’s not feasible when we’re talking about national security, spending budgets, allocations of benefits, national economic planning and maintenance, our election system.  Not to mention our Constitution.

Democrats want abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  If democrats are promoting “open borders,” it only makes sense that they want to get rid of the law enforcement agency that deals with immigration violators and people bringing illegal drugs and other items into our country.

So, in addition to allowing anyone to walk into our country from anywhere, at any time, democrats want to allow anything and everything to be brought into our country without question.

Democrats want to change our economic system from capitalism to socialism.  Socialism calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.  According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work for themselves, but for the good of the whole.  Everything that people produce is in essence a social product, and everyone is entitled to a share in it.  Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

Please note that our country, the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, was built through capitalism.  Also please note that socialism, or its close relative communism, has never been successful where tried around the world.

“The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” – Former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher

Democrats want to stifle our freedom of thought.  We see evidence of this every day.  We see it when conservatives are verbally and physically harassed out in public.  We see it on college campuses, where a diversity of thought is feared and looked down upon (this should be the last place where this should occur).  We see it in the entertainment industry, where entertainers are shunned and criticized for independent thought, and the rest of us are inundated by their biased renderings on daily and nightly basis.

Democrats want to return to an America that puts global interests before the interests of our own country.  Democrats are chomping at the bit to destabilize our economy and return the manufacturing and trading advantages back to our global neighbors.

Remember, their “guidebook” is “Rules for Radicals,” a book dedicated to “Lucifer’” by the way, by Saul Alinsky.  Alinsky is Hillary Clinton’s mentor, and Barack Obama was a follower as well.  Realizing this helps us to make more sense out of their actions.

The goal of the democrats, and Alinsky’s mission was, and is, to “incite constant struggle and agitation so that the oppressive ‘system’ would eventually be brought to its knees.”  The core of Alinsky’s belief is destruction.  Destruction of the “system” that allows a disparity of wealth (please see the prior section on socialism).

Democrats want our economy and freedoms to bow at the altar of “climate change, “global Warming,” whatever you want to call it. Liberals in America have successfully brainwashed many Americans, and others around the world, into believing the Earth is burning up, and the villain is carbon dioxide, the gas that makes all living things grow.  It doesn’t take much to see their “climate change religion” is really based on fiction, not fact.

But this plays right into their globalist intentions, and would further raise the cost of food and energy for no rational reason.

Democrats have spent billions of taxpayer dollars financing a junk, “green,” science industry and worthless renewable energy schemes that just don’t work in the real world.

Democrats/liberals believe that our National Anthem is somehow “racist,” that our Flag is “offensive,” and that our history and heritage should be erased because it is “offensive” to some as well. Liberals in America are offended by so much that it is hard to keep track of.  It’s a sad way to go through life, and I wish them well in overcoming their affliction.

This democrat “to do” list should be frightening enough, but it doesn’t even include the topics of abortion, our gun rights and the 2nd amendment, and the two-tiered justice system for members of “the swamp” and everyone else.

Is all of this really what these people want to see happen?  Really?

So again I’ll say, I have a hard time believing that right around half of my fellow Americans actually support the democrat’s agenda.  I have a hard time believing that right around half of my fellow Americans actually think the democrat’s agenda is good for them and our country.

I really have a hard time believing that right around half of my fellow Americans actually think at all.

democrats solving problems

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog 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.

 

 

 

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑