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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But first, a little historical perspective.

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

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

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

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

That bring us to 2019.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think The President would second that notion as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

mayan calendar

 

“It’s tough to make predictions…, especially about the future.” – New York Yankee great, Yogi Berra

Ha!  That’s right, Yogi!  But I’m going to take a crack at it anyway.

Here a few of my latest political predictions about the next couple of years!

Despite the best efforts of the democrats, their “vision quest” and dream scenario of impeaching President Trump will not be realized.  No matter how much the democrats want this to happen, the fact of the matter is there is no “there” there.  The democrats actually end up hurting themselves as they trigger what an abuse of most Americans’ sense of fair play.

Robert Mueller’s “investigation” will still be going on up to the 2020 election, because unless he can come up with some charges against President Trump, which he won’t, the “investigation/witch hunt” is valuable as a distraction and as a talking point against the Trump Presidency.  In “the swamp’s” eyes, it’s better to have The President under investigation than not.

I predict the democrats’ candidate for president will have to have the backing of former President Obama, so that means Joe Biden, because Obama is really only interested in promoting his legacy.  Biden’s running mate will probably be Senator Corey Booker.  Although Bernie Sanders will have quite a bit of carry-over support from 2016, and the support of all of the unapologetic socialists, he will not have the support of “the democrat establishment,” otherwise known as “the swamp.”  Once again, Bernie will bow to his masters and accept his fate.  What about Hillary?  Hillary would only be a back-up plan should Biden not be able to run or decides not to for some reason.  In this case, Bernie’s odds would go way up.

President Trump’s re-election in 2020, along with the Republicans taking back control of The House, and expanding their control in The Senate, will put an end to the Mueller “investigation.” The election will be considered a referendum on the “investigation,” and Mueller and his efforts will be terminated by the Attorney General, whoever that may be at the time.

The democrat’s level of cheating during the 2020 election will reach epic proportions.  It will shake the foundations of our country.  It will be all hands on deck for the democrats and anything goes to defeat President Trump.  Despite up to 10% of the democrat vote being fraudulent, President Trump will still prevail.  This election will usher in dramatic voting reforms.  Please refer to my blog from November 15, 2018, titled, “If the American people lose confidence in the integrity of our election system, we are one big step closer to our republic dissolving right before our eyes.”

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign spent a record $1.2 billion dollars!  We now know that approximately 20-25% of this money came from foreign governments and foreign entities.  Please refer to my blog from October 27, 2017, titled, “Bill & Hillary’s amazing money machine!”  The amount of foreign money pouring into the 2020 election on the Democrats behalf will eclipse the figures of 2016 and the amounts will be unprecedented.  There are many, many countries that stand to benefit economically and monetarily if some of President Trump’s economic and trade policies can be reversed or manipulated in their favor.  This too will actually end up hurting the democrats, as this will also trigger an additional abuse of what most Americans’ see as fair play.

Well, there you have it!

Let the games begin!

And remember you heard it here first!

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

predictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Anybody want to bet they ignore that deadline?”

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

Let’s recap exactly what happened here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

dirty dossier dozen

 

Oh Mika you’re so fine (dumb), you’re so fine (dumb) you blow my mind, hey Mika, hey Mika!  

MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ co-host, Mika Brzezinski, apologized for using a homophobic slur when describing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as a “butt-boy.”

Our “oh so politically correct” Comrade Brzezinski took issue with Pompeo’s recent comments to Fox News regarding Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s involvement in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, according to Fox News’ Brian Flood.

“Why doesn’t Mike Pompeo care right now?” Brzezinski asked. “Are the pathetic deflections that we just heard when he appeared on ‘Fox and Friends,’ is that a patriot speaking, or a wannabe dictator’s butt-boy?  I’m dead serious.  I’m asking, are these the words of a patriot?”

Say what?!

Let me try and put my response in Comrade Brzezinski’s own words.

loe-scarborough-and-mika-brzezinski-msnbc-fox21-ans-sio-rica-25908351

Why doesn’t Mika Brzezinski care right now, I’m asking?  Is the pathetic homophobic slur we just heard when she appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” is that a responsible nation-wide news show host talking, or a wannabe cable news network’s snarky bitch?  I’m dead serious.  I’m asking, are these the words of a responsible nation-wide news show host?

Ya, that about covers it.

Brian Flood goes on to say that, “A viewer took to Twitter, calling the remark ‘as homophobic a term as I’ve heard on national morning television,’ noting that MSNBC did not include the slur in its closed captioning. ‘Maybe don’t equate homosexuality with Mike Pompeo carrying water for the murderous regime in Saudi Arabia,’ the viewer wrote.”

Brzezinski agreed (How could she not?) and quoted the tweet while offering an apology.  She also apologized to Senator Dick Durbin, who was on set at the time.

“SUPER BAD choice of words,” she wrote. “I should have said ‘water boy’… like for football teams or something like that… apologize to @SenatorDurbin too! SO SORRY!”

You know what Mika?  You sit there every morning with your little “butt-boy” (your words not mine) Joe Scarborough, with your “holier than thou” and your “more PC than thou” attitude, and then you spout out this kind of stuff?

double-standards_new

You batter President Trump on a daily basis, calling him a racist, a misogynist, an islamaphobe and a homophobe, but you’re the one actually saying this stuff.

Of course according to you, in your case, it’s just a “super bad choice of words.”

Actually it’s not.  Actually it’s a glimpse into your true persona.

“If it was a Conservative that said what ‘crazed’ Mika Brzezinski stated on her show yesterday, using a certain horrible term, that person would be banned permanently from television,” President Trump tweeted.  “She will probably be given a pass, despite their terrible ratings.”

According to Brian Flood, “MSNBC did not immediately respond when asked if the network condones or plans to do anything about Brzezinski’s comment.”

Of course, Comrade Brzezinski isn’t the first MSNBC star to make homophobic remarks.

We also have sista’ Joy Reid who claimed hateful and anti-gay rhetoric on her blog was planted by “diabolical hackers,” a claim that quickly fell apart.  Reid had even said she reported the hacking “crime” to the FBI. She eventually “kinda-sorta” admitted writing homophobic slurs.

So technically, we’d have to identify her as a lying homophobe, not just a homophobe.

“Back in April, Reid got emotional on the air and admitted it seemed unlikely she was hacked, but that she didn’t recall making the offensive remarks, for which she apologized anyway,” Flood added.

“I genuinely do not believe I wrote those hateful things,” Reid told her viewers (all 3 of them), adding, “The person I am now is not the person I was then.”

Joy Reid displays the typical level of liberal confusion, shared by many of her “biased, fake news media” cohorts.  She is in self-denial and unable to hold herself accountable for her own words while crucifying others for their words.

MSNBC has stood by sista’ Reid and she continues to host a show on the network.

“The only thing worse than a liar is a liar that’s also a hypocrite!” – Tennessee Williams

detecting-high-levels-of-liberal-hypocrisy-in-this-sector-captain

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

But here is what we are really talking about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adios amigos!

WINNING!

 

Louis Casiano of Fox News contributed to this article.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

migrant caravan

 

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

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

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

So what’s the story here?

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

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

Ha!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This will definitely be an entertaining next couple of years!

Keep those twitter accounts humming!

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

socialist-ocasio-cortez-trump

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, they say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We the People” have waited long enough.

We want our wall!

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

trump pelosi schumer wall mtg

 

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

Who you calling a wimp…, wimp?

What I’m referring to here is back in 1987, Newsweek published a story about the then Vice President seeking his own White House bid titled, “George Bush: Fighting the ‘Wimp Factor,” referring to George Herbert Walker Bush, who would become the 41st President of The United States.

That was back in the day when Republicans were afraid of how they would be perceived by the media and didn’t fight back against them.

That was back in the day (the pre-FOX News days) when “the media” could get away with pretty much whatever they wanted.  They had the power to mold the country’s take on any topic or situation.

Well…, those days are gone my friends, and I’m officially calling out former Newsweek editor Evan Thomas!

This offending magazine hit the newsstands when George H. W. Bush’s granddaughter, Jenna, was only 6 years old, but it ended up leaving a lasting impression on her.

Jenna Bush Hager would go on to say that, Newsweek’s cover calling George H.W. Bush [her grandfather] a “wimp” confused her.  “He was a hero in our eyes.”

And rightly so.

“When we lived here in D.C., when we were in elementary school, I have this vivid memory of going to the grocery store, I was with my mom, and saw the cover of Newsweek that said ‘Wimp’ and it had a picture of my grandpa next to it.  It confused me, it confused us, because he was the antithesis of a wimp,” Bush Hager said on NBC’s “Today” show.

“He was somebody that showed us that family matters.  He never was looking at work when we were next to him.  He was present.  He played with us.  He made us feel special,” Bush Hager continued. “He spoke softly and he didn’t speak about himself, he was humble.  But why did that have to equate to being a wimp?  It didn’t to us.  He was our hero.”

The United States formally entered World War II December 8, 1941, following Japan’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.  Six months later, George Bush enlisted into the U.S. Navy immediately after he graduated from High School.

He became a naval aviator in 10 months.

He was commissioned as an ensign on June 9, 1943, just three days before his 19th birthday, which made him one of the youngest aviators in the history of the Navy.

Initially, his squadron participated in the victorious Battle of the Philippine Sea, one of the largest air battles of World War II.

Bush was promoted to lieutenant (junior grade) on August 1, 1944, and his aircraft carrier, The San Jacinto, commenced operations against the Japanese in the Bonin Islands.  He piloted one of the four Grumman TBM Avengers that attacked the Japanese installations on Chichijima on September 2, 1944.  His aircraft was hit by flak during the attack, but Bush successfully released bombs and scored several hits anyway. With his engine ablaze, he flew several miles from the island, where he and his crew bailed out.  Bush waited for four hours in a small raft before he was rescued by the submarine USS Finback.

Through 1944, he flew 58 combat missions for which he received the Distinguished Flying Cross, three Air Medals, and the Presidential Unit Citation.

After Bush received his military discharge, he enrolled at Yale University.  He earned an undergraduate degree in economics on an accelerated program that enabled him to graduate in two and a half years, rather than the usual four.  He also captained the Yale baseball team and played in the first two College World Series.

He moved his family to West Texas where he entered the oil business, worked his way up the ladder, eventually owning his own oil drilling company, and becoming a millionaire by the age of 40.

He was the United States Ambassador to The United Nations.

He served as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

He served as Vice President for two terms under Ronald Reagan.

He was elected the 41st President of The United States, where Bush defeated Michael Dukakis in the Electoral College by a total of 426 to 111, losing only nine states.

As President, he oversaw the fall of The Berlin Wall and the fall of The Soviet Union.

He also oversaw Operation Desert Storm, the first Gulf War, in Iraq.  Inarguably one of the most successful military operations in our country’s history.

I would say that this is the resume’ of a man who was anything but a wimp.

According to Brian Flood of Fox News, “It seems that the man responsible for calling Bush a wimp agrees with Bush Hager now, even if it took him decades to admit it.  Earlier this week, former Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said he regretted using the word “wimp” to describe H.W. Bush.

Thomas, in an op-ed for Yahoo, wrote that he edited the story and added the word “wimp” despite objections from the story’s reporter.

“But the clear implication of the cover story…, was that Bush somehow lacked the inner fortitude to lead the free world,” he wrote.  “How wrong we were.  As the 41st president, Bush was anything but a wimp.”

As usual, the eventual retraction of a story or a statement does not match the impact or effect of the original story or statement.

Thank you Mr. Thomas for waiting until the poor man was dead to admit you were wrong, and the statement was a mistake.  But in all actuality, you knew you were wrong at the time as well.  You just didn’t care, and you weren’t going to let facts get in the way of your desired narrative.  You were just doing your job as a member of the “biased, liberal, fake news media,” while attempting to cast George H. W. Bush in a negative light.

Mr. Evan Welling Thomas III, now there’s a wimpy sounding name for you, deserves to be called out for being the “biased, liberal, fake news media” propagandist that he was, and is.  He is also a proud member in a family where his grandfather, Norman Thomas, was a six-time Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.

That figures.  Such a proud leftist, and wimpy, heritage.

I’m sorry that George’s granddaughter, Jenna, was subjected to this character assignation perpetrated by Evan Thomas and Newsweek (which I like to call “WeakNews”).

Like they might say in a sports locker room, “Mr. Thomas…, you couldn’t hold George’s jockstrap!

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Bush-Newsweek

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑