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

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

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

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

Wait…, say what?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beautiful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s take a look.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Dershowitz is definitely not mincing words here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

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

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

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

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

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

According to “Investor’s Business Daily:”

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Is that not a crisis at the border?

Wait…, there’s more.

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

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

Let’s put those numbers in perspective.

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

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

But wait…, there’s more.

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

Oh goody!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Jimmy Carter:

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

President Ronald Reagan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President George H.W. Bush:

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

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

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

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

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

President Bill Clinton:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President George W. Bush:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Barack Obama:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Donald Trump:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

trump national emergency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

russian hoax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WINNING!

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

russian collusion

 

Climate Change!  Global Warming!  It’s the end of the world as we know it…, and I feel fine.

There are a lot of misconceptions and misnomers being thrown around by “Climate Change Alarmists.”

Climate Change Alarmists are individuals who look at you as if you have three heads if you dare to question any of their Climate Change claims or appeals.

Climate Change Alarmists call people other people who don’t swallow their story hook, line and sinker, “Climate Change Deniers.”

Ok…, let’s be clear…, NOBODY believes the climate doesn’t change or isn’t changing.

Some people just believe the Earth’s climate changes naturally, and on its own, just like it is scientifically documented to have done throughout the world’s history, whether people were around or not.

“Climate Change Deniers” are also typically skeptical of policies directed at combating Climate Change because they don’t believe there is anything people can really do to effect the climate one way or the other.

My question to the Climate Change Alarmists would be, “Did you actually expect the Earth’s climate to NOT change from time to time?  Did you really expect the Earth’s climate to remain exactly the same forever?

That seems to be where these Climate Change Alarmists are coming from.

The Earth has had periods of “Global Warming,” “Global Cooling,” and even “Ice Ages” in the past when people either weren’t even around, or people did not burn fossil fuels.  How does the Climate Change community explain this?  How did the climate change back then without the help of the “evil” human polluters?

Let’s look at a recent article by Harry Pettit, of News.com, as a typical example of a Climate Change Alarmist spinning another fantasy climate change story and scenario that just doesn’t make any sense.

According to Mr. Pettit, “An Antarctic ‘time bomb’ is waiting to go off.”

He says that, “Earth’s sea levels should be nine meters higher than they are,” and that “dramatic melting in Antarctica may soon plug the gap.”

That’s over 29 feet higher for us unscientific and/or American Neanderthals.

So…, the oceans should be 29 feet higher than they are?

That’s like a three story building you know?

Really?

Do you understand how stupid that sounds?

“They say global temperatures today are the same as they were 115,000 years ago, a time when modern humans were only just beginning to leave Africa, he continues.”

Oh really?  How could that be?  What types of cars were people driving back then?  They must have had a lot of factories pumping out plenty of emissions in old Sub-Saharan Africa, huh?

Again, do you understand how stupid that sounds?

“Research shows during this time period, ‘scorching’ ocean temperatures caused a catastrophic global ice melt.  As a result, sea levels were six to nine meters higher than they are today.  But if modern ocean temperatures are the same as they were during that period, it means our planet is missing a devastating sea rise.”

I feel like I’m dumber for just having read that.  Please take a moment to reread the previous paragraph in order to properly appreciate all of the contradictions and false assumptions made here.

And again, do you understand how stupid that sounds?

“If oceans were to rise by just 1.8 meters (about 6 feet), large swathes of coastal cities would find themselves underwater, turning streets into canals and completely submerging some buildings,” and that, “There’s no way to get tens of meters of sea level rise without getting tens of meters of sea level rise from Antarctica,” said Dr. Rob DeConto, an Antarctic expert at the University of Massachusetts in the U.S.

“In the next century, ice loss would get even worse,” he added.

Even if you throw all common sense out the window and take all of these doomsday predictions at face value, do these people really think that having America return to the Middle Ages would make any difference?

If we all stopped driving cars, stopped transporting things with trucks, stopped flying in commercial jets and stopped using fossil fuels for electric power tomorrow, would that avert all of this supposed ice melting?

If you really think so, I’ve got this bridge I’m looking to sell…, cheap.

“The Sun” newspaper, in the United Kingdom, actually has a “sea level doomsday simulator” on its website if you’d like to know whether your home would be wiped out by rising oceans!

Well isn’t that special.

 

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.

ice-caps melting

A former DEA agent thinks actor Sean Penn “should be in jail…,” and so do I!

According to Stephen Sorace of Fox News, “A now-retired agent of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency wants to see Sean Penn ‘in jail’ for putting lives at risk when the actor interviewed notorious drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” (Mexican slang for “Shorty”) Guzman for Rolling Stone [Magazine] in 2015.”

“Jack Riley, 60, came close to seeing “El Chapo” arrested on Oct. 2, 2015, but the operation conducted by Mexican Marines was interrupted when Penn, accompanied by Mexican soap opera actress, Kate del Castillo, arrived at the “El Tuna” compound, the New York Post reported.”

“Oh, my God! If I could get my hands on Sean Penn!” Riley, a former top agent with the DEA, told the Post. “The people he put at risk because of that stunt.  He should be in jail.”

“The Marines put the mission on hold so they wouldn’t risk putting the celebrities in danger, according to the paper.  But doing so cost authorities the element of surprise and allowed the drug kingpin to escape.”

“Riley tried to get Penn and del Castillo prosecuted for obstruction, but DEA and Justice Department officials didn’t pursue charges because the actor was protected by serving as a journalist, according to the Post.”

I’m pretty sure that being loud mouthed liberals didn’t hurt their cause either.  I’m willing to bet that if it had been Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh the “inJustice Department” would have taken a different stance.  Just sayin’.

“El Chapo” was finally arrested in 2016.  He faces multiple drug and murder conspiracy charges that could put him in prison for life if he’s convicted.

When are some actors, actresses and entertainers in general going to stop mistaking what they have to say as important, informative or even relevant?

So, Sean Penn stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, and then he thought he was a journalist and could interview “El Chapo?!”

I believe it’s either one of two things:

Either, at a certain point these divas come to realize how unimportant their “accomplishments” are and they attempt to compensate for that, or, their fame gives them a false sense of importance and relevance.

In Sean’s case, I feel it would be option number two.

Mr. Penn has since expressed regret that his exclusive Rolling Stone interview with Guzmán had not achieved its true purpose…, to start a conversation about the war on drugs.

What?  Excuse me Sean, but you are soooo full of crap.

“We’re going to put all our focus, all our energy, all our billions of dollars on the ‘bad guy’, and what happens?” Penn said. “You get another death the next day, the same way.”

That’s right Sean.  So tell me again how you think a wall on our southern border is immoral.  Tell me again how a barrier of some sort will not help us to curtail the flow of illegal drugs into our country.

“Let’s go to the big picture of what we all want,” Penn continued. “We all want this drug problem to stop. We all want them, the killings in Chicago, to stop.

No Sean, that’s not what “we all” want.

Some of us just like to talk a good game, but then we support sanctuary cities for people who have come into our country illegally.

Some of us just like to talk a good game, but then we support the dissolution of our Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.  The exact agency that deals with illegal immigrants and illegal drugs that flow into our country.

Some of us just like to talk a good game, but then pretend that a wall or physical barrier will be ineffective on our southern border, even though we know better.

You’re good at talking a good game, Sean.  We get it.  You’re an actor.

But how about just staying out of the way when some people are actually trying to make a positive difference.  That’s the least you could do.

So again, I believe actor Sean Penn should be in jail, or at the very least just shut his mouth and stick to playing someone who knows what they’re doing.

Oh, and just in case you’re interested, our friend Sean Penn is currently in Turkey working on a documentary about the death of his fellow “journalist,” the Saudi Arabian dissident, author, columnist for The Washington Post, and general manager and editor-in-chief of Al-Arab News Channel, Jamal Khashoggi, who was apparently assassinated at the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, in October of 2018 by agents of the Saudi government.

Be still my heart!

 

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.

sean penn and el chapo

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

 

“I see liberal hypocrites…, liberal hypocrites everywhere!” 

It’s frustrating how these late night shows have all become so political.  They are all hyper-critical of Conservatives and especially when it comes to President Trump.

It seems like they have all become incapable of non-political comedy.

They usually comment on and lampoon the “news of the day,” except in one recent instance.

Despite the racist controversy surrounding Democrat Virginia Governor Ralph Northam dominating the news cycle for days, late-night hosts Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon have avoided the subject in their monologues.

Northam’s yearbook page from the East Virginia Medical School, in 1984, went viral because it included an image of him in blackface and another person in a KKK robe.

While Northam’s racist yearbook page and bizarre press conference led national news and were mocked by several late-night hosts, they were left unmentioned by Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon.

Now why would that be?

Hmmm.

Is it because Northam is a democrat?

That could be, but this didn’t seem to get in the way of other late night comedians having fun at Governor Northam’s expense.

According to Joseph A. Wulfsohn of Fox News, ‘“The Daily Show’ host Trevor Noah referred to the Democratic governor as a “blackface connoisseur” for his expertise regarding how difficult it is to remove shoe polish off your face.”

“Late Show” host Stephen Colbert hit the Virginia politician for saying he ‘finally had a chance’ to sit down and look at the photo from the yearbook.”

‘“I’m guessing that wearing blackface is one of those things you would remember doing, like skydiving or your first time,’ Colbert told his audience.”

‘“Late Night’ host Seth Meyers poked fun at Northam for not identifying whether he was the one in blackface or in the KKK hood, calling it a ‘real lose-lose.’”

‘“That’s like being asked whether you’re Erik or Lyle Menendez,’ Meyers quipped.”

So why would Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon opt out of taking some cheap shots at the Virginia Governor’s expense?

Aha!  I should have known.

It’s because both of these so called “comedians” have worn black face in their own pasts!

What a couple of liberal hypocrites!

Joseph A. Wulfsohn reports that, “Kimmel wore blackface on numerous occasions, impersonating NBA Hall of Famer Karl Malone as well as former daytime talk show host Oprah Winfrey in his Comedy Central series ‘The Man Show.’”

And, “Fallon also appeared in blackface during his days on ‘Saturday Night Live,’ impersonating Chris Rock in a sketch.”

Talk about selective liberal outrage!

But they can get away with it because no one will call them on it except Fox News, MrEricksonRules, and maybe a few others.

Stay thirsty my friends, and remember to keep your eyes and ears open for “fake news,” liberal propaganda, and, as in the case here, liberal propaganda by omission.

The liberal mindset is, “If we don’t mention it or recognize it…, then it didn’t happen.”

 

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.

fallon and kimmel

 

Is California voter fraud a fraud?

According to Ed Kilgore of New York Magazine, and most liberals, it is.  In a recent article, Mr. Kilgore calls “voter fraud” a “Republican myth.”

voter fraud schumer

Commenting on Republicans’ questioning of the California voting process during the midterm election, “… they professed mystification at the final results. I say “professed” because it’s hard to believe Speaker Paul Ryan is as stupid as he sounds here:”

“The California election system ‘just defies logic to me,’ [former Speaker of The House, Paul] Ryan said during a Washington Post event.

‘“We were only down 26 seats the night of the [midterm] election and three weeks later, we lost basically every California race….’”

‘“In Wisconsin, we knew the next day. Scott Walker, my friend, I was sad to see him lose, but we accepted the results on Wednesday,’ Ryan said.  In California, ‘their system is bizarre; I still don’t completely understand it. There are a lot of races there we should have won.’”

Kilgore adds that, “All in all, the situation in California was well summarized by the statewide elected official in charge of the system, Alex Padilla, [The Secretary of State for the state of California], in a tart response to [then Republican Speaker of The House, Paul] Ryan:”

‘“It is bizarre that Paul Ryan cannot grasp basic voting rights protections,’ Padilla said in a statement to ‘The Hill’….”

But…, “In just [the last] four years, the number of absentee ballots distributed in California has increased by 44 percent. ‘Nearly 13 million voters have received a ballot in the mail, compared to just 9 million in the last gubernatorial election in 2014,’ notes Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data Inc.”

‘“In California, we believe in an inclusive and accessible democracy. We provide voters as many opportunities as possible to cast their ballots,’ Padilla’s statement continues. ‘That is why we have no excuse vote by mail, automatic voter registration, same-day voter registration, and early voting. These reforms helped drive California’s historic registration and a 30 year high in midterm turnout.’”

Kilgore then adds, “This brouhaha might not matter if it did not feed the same myths of voter fraud that led Donald Trump to claim without a hint of evidence after the 2016 elections that ‘millions’ of illegal votes had been cast for Hillary Clinton in California, robbing him of a popular-vote plurality nationally. Going into 2020, this sort of loose talk needs to be debunked wherever possible, unless we want to risk the possibility of a GOP election defeat that is not simply questioned but denied.”

Okay Ed Kilgore, and all of your liberal friends…, my turn.

Liberals (democrats) are always quick to dismiss any concerns about voter fraud.  They dismiss these concerns as if you were stating a concern about extraterrestrials (ETs) affecting the voting process.

This is exactly the case and the honest to God’s truth.

Let me state this again, “Liberals (democrats) are always quick to dismiss any concerns about voter fraud.  They dismiss these concerns as if you were stating a concern about extraterrestrials (ETs) affecting the voting process.”

All I have to say is, “E.T…., phone home.”

The group “Judicial Watch” is currently suing California and Los Angeles County over “dirty” voter registration rolls.

Before I go any further, let’s see who “Judicial Watch” is.

Per “Judicial Watch’s” website:

Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach.

The motto of Judicial Watch is “Because no one is above the law”. To this end, Judicial Watch uses the open records or freedom of information laws and other tools to investigate and uncover misconduct by government officials and litigation to hold to account politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities.

Okay, back to talking about unicorns…, ooops, I mean voter fraud.

“Judicial Watch” has filed a federal lawsuit against Los Angeles County and the State of California over their failure to clean their voter rolls and to produce election-related records as required by the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

“Judicial Watch” argues that the State of California and a number of its counties, including the county of Los Angeles, have registration rates exceeding 100%!

According to “Judicial Watch,” “Eleven of California’s 58 counties have registration rates exceeding 100% of the age-eligible citizenry.”

“Los Angeles County has more voter registrations on its voter rolls than it has citizens who are old enough to register.  Specifically, according to data provided to and published by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), Los Angeles County has a registration rate of 112% of its adult citizen population.”

Why is this important to note?  Well, besides the obvious concerns about potential fraudulent votes, Los Angeles County is particularly noteworthy because of the number of potential voters it represents.

Here are a couple interesting facts:

There are only 7 states that have larger populations than Los Angeles County!

Los Angeles County has a larger population that Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware and Washington DC combined!

 

la county vs 10 statesSo when we’re talking about the numbers of potential fraudulent votes in Los Angeles County, and California overall, we’re talking about millions of votes. That is nothing to sneeze at or dismiss out of hand.

Judicial Watch points out that, “About 21% of all of California’s voter registrations, or more than one in five, are designated as ‘inactive.’”

“California has the highest rate of inactive registrations of any state in the country…, [and] Los Angeles County has the highest number of inactive registrations of any single county in the country.”

Interesting.

Judicial Watch explains that, “Even though a registration is officially designated as “inactive,” it may still be voted on Election Day and is still on the official voter registration list. The inactive registrations of voters who have moved to a different state “are particularly vulnerable to fraudulent abuse by a third party” because the voter who has moved “is unlikely to monitor the use of or communications concerning an old registration.” Inactive registrations “are also inherently vulnerable to abuse by voters who plan to fraudulently double-vote in two different jurisdictions on the same Election Day.”

Judicial Watch has sent numerous written requests for public records pertaining to their voter lists and inactive registrations, but was stonewalled each time. In other cases their requests were just ignored by “The People’s Republic of California.”

“California may have the dirtiest election rolls in the country,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up their voting rolls. Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. This lawsuit aims to ensure that citizens of California can have more confidence that their elections are fair and honest.”

Judicial Watch has previously filed successful lawsuits against Ohio and Indiana that resulted in those states taking several actions to clean up their voting rolls.  Judicial Watch is currently suing Kentucky over its failure to remove ineligible voters, and is suing the State of Maryland and Montgomery County over their failure to release voting-related records.

So, there you have it.

Please tell us again, Ed Kilgore, how, “Voter fraud is just a Republican myth.”

Please tell us again, Mr. Kilgore, how “stupid” we are for even thinking there might be something to be concerned about here.

Please explain to us again, Mr. Alex Padilla, how, “In California, we believe in an inclusive and accessible democracy. We provide voters as many opportunities as possible to cast their ballots.”

What this translates to is, “In California, we believe in giving democrats access to every opportunity in order to guarantee their candidates get as many votes as is necessary to win.”

Please tell us again, Ed Kilgore, about, “The myths of voter fraud that led Donald Trump to claim without a hint of evidence after the 2016 elections that ‘millions’ of illegal votes had been cast for Hillary Clinton in California, robbing him of a popular-vote plurality nationally.”

Again, we see that President Trump was probably right, again.

Please tell us again, Mr. Kilgore, how, “Going into 2020, this sort of loose talk needs to be debunked wherever possible, unless we want to risk the possibility of a GOP election defeat that is not simply questioned but denied.”

Oh…, Mr. Kilgore, you mean like how you and your democrat friends have not only “questioned but denied” Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016?

Is that what you mean?

Again we see that the hypocrisy and shamelessness of the democrats knows no bounds.  They are willing to do absolutely ANYTHING to promote their candidates and their agenda…, ANYTHING.

As patriotic Americans, it is our duty to realize this and to continue to fight for honesty and fairness in the voting process and in our government in general.

 

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.

voter-fraud

 

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

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑