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

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

 

“Bullying journalists is not presidential.” – Fox News anchor Julie Banderas

President Trump called out a pair of Fox News personalities last Sunday on Twitter, saying that FOX’s John Roberts and Gillian Turner, “…have even less understanding of the Wall negotiations that the folks at FAKE NEWS CNN&NBC!”

According to Erik Pedersen for “Deadline Hollywood,” “A Fox colleague [Former Fox Report Weekend regular and current fill-in anchor Julie Banderas] hit back on the same social media platform.”

“By going on Twitter and insulting two of our journalists @realDonaldTrump is putting a target on their backs. In turn his followers will then attack @johnrobertsFox and @GillianHTurner in support on Twitter. Bullying journalists is not Presidential. Period. https://t.co/xayShIojYj — Julie Banderas (@JulieBanderas) January 28, 2019”

“A few minutes earlier, Banderas had replied to a ‘rando’ [a random tweeter] who counseled her that if she ‘can’t stand some criticism, time to find a new line of work.’ She hit back, with an ‘@POTUS’ target:

‘We can and do stand plenty of criticism every day which is fine coming from everyday viewers. Our jobs are not meant to please others. But the office of the @POTUS ought not to be the one lashing out. That’s not how this country works. That’s not how Freedom of the Press works. https://t.co/buakHRRwPO — Julie Banderas (@JulieBanderas) January 28, 2019,”

Wow…, where do I begin?

Let’s begin by suggesting that Julie Banderas put her “big girl” pants on, first of all.

Next, let’s deal with Ms. Banderas’ understanding of what “bullying” is.

Julie Banderas is saying that because President Trump accused her colleagues, John Roberts and Gillian Turner, of “…having even less understanding of the Wall negotiations that the folks at FAKE NEWS CNN&NBC!” that The President was “bullying” them.

You call this “bullying?”

Really?

How protected you must have been growing up Ms. Banderas.

You were obviously a regular visitor to the various “safe zones” back in college.

I don’t view this as “bullying,” Ms. Banderas…, I view this as The President stating his opinion, which we all still have the right to do the last time I checked (even though Nancy Pelosi is now in charge of The House of Representatives).

I tend to agree with the random tweeter who suggested that if Julie Banderas, “can’t stand some criticism, time to find a new line of work.”

Lastly, Ms. Banderas says, “We can and do stand plenty of criticism every day which is fine coming from everyday viewers. Our jobs are not meant to please others. But the office of the @POTUS ought not to be the one lashing out. That’s not how this country works. That’s not how Freedom of the Press works.”

Thank you Julie for explaining to us all “how this country works,” and how “freedom of the press works.” It must be an awful burden on you to be responsible for being the caretaker of this guarded knowledge!

The fact is that you obviously have no idea how this country works, and that the “freedom of the press” does not override or come before the freedom of speech of all citizens…, including The President of the United States.

Ms. Banderas has also said, “People used to call President Obama stupid.  People used to call him a Muslim.  People used to call him under-qualified, a sellout to America, a hater of Israel.  I mean they called him every name in the book, but you didn’t see him lash out.”

Besides the fact that all of that is true…, who was saying these things?  You can find someone saying just about anything at any time.  The difference with President Trump is that it is other elected politicians (mayors, governors, congress people and senators) saying these hurtful things about him.  It is the “biased, liberal, fake news media saying libelous things about President Trump.  It is the whole Hollywood and entertainment community saying exaggerated untruths about President Trump.

You see Julie, who “they” are makes quite a difference.  What “people” you’re talking about makes quite a difference.

Being a professional “journalist,” you should be able to make that determination on your own.

People in a position to influence others, who are confused, ought not be spouting their ill-informed beliefs for the consumption of the general public.  In this case, they need to be “lashed out” at.  And if the one “lashing out” at these people, who should know better, is The President, then so be it.

 

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.

cnn

 

Let’s get one thing clear…, Robert Mueller knew from the start there was no Russian collusion by President Trump or anyone on his team.

Yes folks…, it’s true.

The Mueller investigation was designed to be a diversionary tactic to keep our eyes off of “the swamp” (specifically former President Obama, his administration, the FBI, the DOJ, Hillary Clinton and the DNC).  It was designed to be an ongoing attack against President Trump and an ongoing point of contention to be used by the “biased, liberal, fake news media.”  And it was conceived as a “witch hunt” to punish anyone who may have been a friend or an associate of Donald Trump.

The Mueller investigation is a “bastard child” that was born out of illegality, illegitimacy and false pretenses to begin with.

Yet this treasonous and shameless excuse for an “investigation” is still breathing and still moving forward.

So what’s the latest jewel in Mueller’s crown?

The indictment of Roger Stone, who was a former political consultant for Donald Trump, up until August of 2015.

According to Ashley May of USA TODAY, “A group of heavily armed FBI agents stormed Roger Stone’s Florida home on Friday morning, as seen in a dramatic CNN video.”

“About a dozen officers outfitted with flashlights, bullet-proof vests and tactical gear surrounded the home.”

Ya…, you wouldn’t want this 66 year grandfather to make a run for it!  Ha!

“In the video, an agent is heard pounding on the door and announcing ‘FBI! Open the door!’ Then, he shouts ‘FBI! Warrant!’”

“The door opens and a shadow that appears to be Stone can be seen. CNN reports Stone answered the door wearing his glasses and sleepwear.”

This whole episode was obviously choreographed for dramatic effect.

And how was it again that CNN happened to be there to document the whole thing?

Anyway…, back to Stone’s indictment.

What is Stone being indicted for?

Collusion with the Russians?

No.

Tampering with the election of 2016?

No.

According to Alex Pappas and Catherine Herridge of Fox News, “President Trump’s former longtime political adviser is charged with obstruction, making false statements and witness tampering over his alleged contact with Trump campaign officials about WikiLeaks.”

 

 

“For months, Stone has warned that he could be indicted, saying in public he believed Mueller was investigating whether he had advance knowledge of WikiLeaks releasing hacked emails of Democrats during the 2016 campaign. Stone has repeatedly denied the accusation.”

So just to be clear here…, we’re not supposed to be upset about what was in the emails, but just the fact that they were hacked and released.

Roger Stone has questioned, “Where is the crime?  I engaged in politics.”

The problem, Roger, is that you engaged in politics in support of Donald Trump and not “the swamp.”

“No matter how much pressure they put on me, no matter what they say I will not bear false witness against Donald Trump,” Stone has said. “I will not do what Michael Cohen has done and make up lies to ease the pressure on myself.”

“Mueller’s investigation, which was initially ordered to look into the 2016 election, has gone on for more than a year and half.  It has expanded to probe financial crimes of Trump associates before the election, conversations Trump’s national security adviser had with the Russians during the transition and whether Trump obstructed justice with his comments and actions related to the probe,” reports Alex Pappas.

Let’s take a look down memory lane and see the list of people charged by Mueller and his “hit squad:”

Twenty-six Russian nationals and three Russian companies have been charged with interfering in the 2016 presidential election.

These charges were made “for show” only.  These individuals and companies will never have their day in court here, or have an opportunity to defend themselves.  These charges were a waste of time and just an easy opportunity to keep the Russian narrative alive.

“Other convictions include: former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, who both pleaded guilty to making false statements in 2017.”

So no charges involving Russian collusion or charges implicating President trump in any way.

“Former campaign adviser Rick Gates in 2018 pleaded guilty and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted and later pleaded guilty in a separate financial crimes case dating back before the 2016 election.”

Again, no charges involving Russian collusion or charges implicating President trump in any way.

“Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements in a case brought by Mueller in November. Alex van der Zwaan, a London-based lawyer, pleaded guilty to making false statements this year, and Richard Pinedo, a California man, pleaded guilty to identity fraud in 2018.”

So…, again, no charges involving Russian collusion or charges implicating President Trump in any way.

In summary, none of President Trump’s associates or anyone connected to President Trump in any way have been charged with crimes related to collusion.

So there you have it.

So what do we really have here?

A “WITCH HUNT” and A FARCE!!!

Just as President Trump has said, over and over.

“The swamp” will not go quietly.  In fact it isn’t going anywhere.  But, we can make a dent in it, and at least make them realize we are paying attention now, and the effort to expose their agendas and propaganda are not going away.

 

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.

treason

For all of those liberals living in denial…, well here you go, straight from the horse’s…, uh, I mean the editor’s mouth!

Jill Abramson, a veteran journalist in her own right, and the former executive editor at The New York Times newspaper from 2011 to 2014, says “The Times” has a financial incentive to bash the president and that the imbalance is helping to erode its credibility.  She added that, the paper’s “news” pages have become “unmistakably anti-Trump.”

Please go on Ms. Abramson, but tell us something we don’t already know.

Being the executive editor for four years during President Obama’s tenure was obviously a pretty boring time at “The Times.”  The “biased, liberal, fake news media” wasn’t interested in any hard hitting investigative “journalism” concerning President Obama or his administration.  There were no daily attacks of President Obama, the first lady, or his family. There was only properly spun propaganda or propaganda by omission.

I’m sure “The Times,” version 2017-2018, looks and sounds quite different today compared to the paper she left four years ago.

I do wonder, however, what she is referring to when she says “The Times has a financial incentive to bash the president….” What “financial incentive” exactly do they receive for bashing the president, and from whom?

This definitely does not sound like something a “fair and balanced” news source would practice.  Does it?  Fair minded people of course would say “no,” but how do my liberal friends respond to this?  I’m just wondering, and I hope they give me some feedback.

I can’t see any possible justification for this behavior unless you’re okay with a major media outlet being a propaganda tool for any ideology or political party, while claiming to be objective.

According to Howard Kurtz, of Fox News, for Media Buzz, “In a soon-to-be published book, ‘Merchants of Truth,’ that casts a skeptical eye on the news business, Abramson defends the Times in some ways but offers some harsh words for her successor, Dean Baquet.  And Abramson, who was the paper’s only female executive editor until her firing, invoked Steve Bannon’s slam that in the Trump era the mainstream media have become the “opposition party.”

‘“Though Baquet said publicly he didn’t want the Times to be the opposition party, his news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump,’ Abramson writes, adding that she believes the same is true of the Washington Post. ‘Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis.’”

“Abramson describes a generational split at the Times, with younger staffers, many of them in digital jobs, favoring an unrestrained assault on the presidency. ‘The more “woke” staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards,’ she writes.”

President Trump routinely claims that he “is keeping the failing New York Times in business.”  Some would say this is an exaggeration, but the former editor acknowledges a “Trump bump” that saw digital subscriptions during his first six months in office jump by 600,000, to more than 2 million.

I would call that quite significant!

‘“Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative…,’ Abramson added.”

When her boss, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. decided to let her go, he called her in, fired her, and handed her a press release announcing her resignation.

Abramson says she replied, “Arthur, I’ve devoted my entire career to telling the truth, and I won’t agree to this press release.  I’m going to say I’ve been fired.”

Just one more attempt at “fake news” I guess!

Of course the rest of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” claim that a result of losing her job she is now being vindictive and making false claims against The New York Times.

It’s funny, but I never hear “the biased, liberal, fake news media” claiming that former Trump appointees or employees are acting in a vindictive manner or making false claims against him.

Just sayin’.

 

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.

nytimes-fake_news-all_the_news

 

What is a “Republican,” and what is a “Conservative,” and is President Trump either one?  

I would suggest that the terms “republican” and “conservative” are moving targets.

When President Trump was running for president, it was pretty apparent that “the establishment republicans” didn’t consider him “a republican,” and the “establishment conservatives” didn’t consider him a “conservative.”

President Trump ran under the mantle of “a republican” within the Republican Party, but definitely was not a member of “the club.”

And people supported Donald Trump for the 2016 election for just that reason.  Many Americans wanted someone who wasn’t a member of the establishment politician’s “club.”  I believe people voted for Donald Trump because of his ideas and his intentions, without much regard for which party he ran under or how he was labeled.

Socially speaking, Donald Trump’s “anti-political correctness” stance naturally aligned him more with the Republican Party and the conservatives, however.

The terms “republican” and “conservative,” of course, mean different things to different people.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News contributor, also asked the question, “Is Trump a Republican?” and pointed out that President Trump, “chose to characterize himself as a conservative Republican; and nearly two years into his presidency, he continues to call himself that.”

Judge Napolitano goes on to say that, “A fair analysis of his presidency at its current mid-point gives rise in my mind, and I suggest it should in yours, to serious questions about his fidelity to any conservative principles. Trump is the president who attacks the FBI almost every day, borrows a trillion dollars a year to run the government, has tried to re-write immigration laws on his own, has imposed tariffs on household goods for which Americans must pay up to 25 percent more than they previously were paying, suggested he could shut down the New York Times and CNN, insults foreign leaders whose alliances with the US are long and deep, bombed Syria without congressional authorization, sent troops to Syria then summarily ordered them home, threatened to reveal intelligence sources publicly, and continues to use drones to kill folks internationally.”

Wow!  Where did that come from and how do you really feel, Judge?

First of all, when someone leads off by saying this is going to be “a fair analysis,” it usually isn’t, and this is no exception.

Let’s analyze the Judge’s attacks, one mindless point at a time.

The Judge says, “Trump is the president who attacks the FBI almost every day…”

Have you been paying attention to the news at all Judge?  Do the names James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page conjure up any reason to attack the FBI?  Does the fraudulent Steele dossier, the FISA warrants that were obtained under false pretenses, and the “spying on” of the Trump campaign and the early Trump presidency possibly give The President any reason to be critical of the FBI?

The Judge complains that President Trump, “…, borrows a trillion dollars a year to run the government…”

And this is any different from Barrack Obama or George Bush how?  No one else seems to be concerned about the deficit.  Why should he?  The “establishment conservatives” talk a good deficit concern game, but that’s as far as it goes…, talk.

Judge Napolitano claims that President Trump, “…, has tried to re-write immigration laws on his own…”

For a judge, you don’t seem to be very observant, Judge Napolitano.  Quite the contrary from your claim, President Trump is actually trying to follow the immigration laws on the books and work within his Constitutional rights as a president and commander in chief.  Perhaps you had him confused with former President Obama.

The Judge says that President Trump, “…, has imposed tariffs on household goods for which Americans must pay up to 25 percent more than they previously were paying…”

This is such a shallow-minded, short-sided and disingenuous remark to be coming from you, Judge.  You must be aware that The United States has been getting ripped-off by all of our trading partners for many years, and that from time to time we have to pay a little bit more as negotiations are taking place, before better trade deals are implemented (as with Canada and Mexico for example).  In the long run we will be much better off as a country.  Wait and see what the China talks bring.

Judge Napolitano asserts that President Trump, “…, suggested he could shut down the New York Times and CNN…”

This statement by the Judge is just a plain lie. President Trump has never said he could “shut down the New York Times and CNN.”  He has called these two news outlets “fake news,” which they are, but never claimed he could, or would, “shut them down.”

The Judge says President Trump, “…, insults foreign leaders whose alliances with the US are long and deep…”

President Trump does not “insult foreign leaders.”  He merely has let them know “there is a new sheriff in town,” and that we value being their ally, but not at the expense of the US at every turn.

“…, bombed Syria without congressional authorization…”

One, he doesn’t need congressional authorization to bomb anyone, and two he demonstrated he means what he says, unlike our prior, weak, president.

“…, sent troops to Syria then summarily ordered them home…”

What’s your point Judge?  Is this not within the prerogative of the Commander in Chief?  And are we just going to keep our soldiers planted out in the desert over there forever?

“…, threatened to reveal intelligence sources publicly…”

This is not really the case here, Judge.  Considering everything the FBI chose to redact in those “secret” documents, what he really threatened to do was reveal the FBI’s CYA operation, not any intelligence sources.

“… and continues to use drones to kill folks internationally.”

Really?  You want to go there?  I can’t recall hearing anything about any drones killing anyone since President Trump was elected, as opposed to Obama’s administration’s almost weekly bragging about the fact.

So there you have the complete deconstruction and refutation of Judge Andrew Napolitano’s “fair analysis” of President Trump’s action in office so far.

I must admit that Judge Napolitano has had me fooled for quite a while.  I apparently had mistaken him as a good natured, former judge, who lent his experience, knowledge and perspective to topics of the day, when in fact he turns out to be a “fake news,” “never Trumper!”

Shame on me, but thank you to the Judge for finally revealing himself.

So the real question here isn’t “Is Trump a Republican?”  It’s “Why isn’t Judge Napolitano working over at CNN?”

 

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.

judge napolitano

So the “biased, liberal, fake news media” now feels it is OK to belittle the education level of selected groups of voters? 

The answer to this question is undeniably “yes,” at least as far as Eugene Scott of The Washington Post is concerned.

Mr. Scott chooses to point out that, “Americans are pursuing higher education at growing rates, but those without a college education are increasingly finding a home in the GOP.”

So are you implying that voters without college educations are somehow less informed, Mr. Scott?

Are you implying that voters without college educations are somehow less deserving of the right to vote, Mr. Scott?

During the latest midterm elections in 2018, if I heard it once I heard it a thousand times from the democrats, “Every vote counts!”  “Every vote deserves to be counted!”

I guess that’s only true when you’re “harvesting” what you believe are votes for democrats.  Right Mr. Scott?

Voter demographics should not have a bearing on anything.  Each voter is as important as any other voter.  The important things are that each legal voter have the opportunity to vote, and that they vote only once.

According to new data released by the Pew Research Center, higher educational attainment is increasingly associated with Democratic Party affiliation and leaning:

“In 1994, 39% of those with a four-year college degree identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party and 54% associated with the Republican Party.  In 2017, those figures were exactly reversed.”

More than half of registered voters who identify as Democrat have a bachelor’s degree, while fewer than 4 in 10 registered voters who identify as Republican have a bachelor’s degree.

Those with graduate degrees are even more likely to find their political home in the Democratic Party, according to the survey.

Meanwhile, the GOP has increasingly become more of a political destination to Americans who lack a college degree, according to Pew, “Among those with no more than a high school education, 47% affiliate with the GOP or lean Republican, while 45% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic.”

In Mr. Scott’s estimation, “This may not bode well for the GOP long-term as the American public becomes increasingly educated.”

I think he means, “… as the American public becomes increasingly brain washed by our liberal education systems!”

According to Census Bureau data, “More than a third of American adults have a four-year college degree or higher, the highest level ever measured by the Census Bureau.”

Why Mr. Scott…, I do believe you are “fake news!”

You say, “This may not bode well for the GOP long-term as the American public becomes increasingly educated,” but if “more than a third of American adults have a four-year college degree or higher,” that would mean close to two thirds do not.  How does that “not bode well for the GOP?”

Mr. Scott goes on to say, “As the Republican Party increasingly becomes the party of those without degrees, their leaders may feel pressure to champion policies that benefit working class voters…”

Well, we can’t have that!  Right Mr. Scott?

That damn “working class,” right Mr. Scott?

Those pathetically ignorant “working class” voters who don’t deserve to vote, but pay for all of your liberal “give-away” programs, right Mr. Scott?

Pew data shows that the educational makeup of the two major parties’ electorates also has changed substantially over the past two decades, particularly when factoring in race:

“When race and education are taken into account, white voters who do to not have a college degree make up a diminished share of Democratic registered voters.  White voters who do not have a four-year degree now constitute just a third of Democratic voters, down from 56% two decades ago.  By contrast, non-college white voters continue to make up a majority of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters at 59%.”

Ha!  I knew it wouldn’t take long before race got involved in the issue!

Apparently “non-educated” white voters are less desirable that “non-educated” Black or Latino voters.

Mr. Scott finishes by saying, “Some top GOP officials have attracted attention for their desire to win women and people of color to their party.  Perhaps moving forward we’ll see more emphasis on what can be done to win the highly educated.”

It seems to me, Mr. Scott, that your “highly educated” people are more often than not the people that are more “highly confused.”

Also, why is it that liberals seem to only value education as a result of a college education?

How about educations and training acquired by our “trade” professionals, like electricians, plumbers, welders, carpenters, HVAC technicians, mechanics, licensed practical nurses, construction professionals, et al?  Do these educations, most of which are quite extensive, not count just because they are practical?

How about the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who serve in our military, most of whom do not have college educations?  Do these educations not count because they are practical in nature?

No, these educations don’t “count” in the minds of liberals because these are educations that do not indoctrinate the students into the liberal political ideology.

Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu, also of The Washington Post, have their own take on voter demographics, specifically as they pertain to Donald Trump’s election and support.

Carnes and Lupu say that, “Media coverage of the 2016 election often emphasized Donald Trump’s appeal to ‘the working class.’ The Atlantic said that ‘the billionaire developer is building a blue-collar foundation.’ The Associated Press wondered what ‘Trump’s success in attracting white, working-class voters’ would mean for his general election strategy.  On Nov. 9, the New York Times front-page article about Trump’s victory characterized it as ‘a decisive demonstration of power by a largely overlooked coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters.’”

“But what about education?” They continued.  “Many pundits noticed early on that Trump’s supporters were mostly people without college degrees.  There were two problems with this line of reasoning, however.”

“First, not having a college degree isn’t a guarantee that someone belongs in the working class, nor should it somehow indicate that these people are not successful (think Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, Aretha Franklin, Quentin Tarantino, Ellen DeGeneres, Simon Cowell, Ted Turner, Rachel Ray, Kim Kardasian, Mark Wahlberg, Al Pacino, Seth Rogan, Marshall “Eminem” Mathers, and Robert ‘F-you’ DeNiro, just to name a few).”

“And, second, although more than 70 percent of Trump supporters didn’t have college degrees, when we looked at the NBC polling data, we noticed something the pundits left out: during the primaries, about 70 percent of all Republicans didn’t have college degrees, close to the national average (71 percent according to the 2013 Census).  Far from being a magnet for the less educated, Trump seemed to have about as many people without college degrees in his camp as we would expect any successful Republican candidate to have.”

So Mr. Scott, you have been debunked!

“Observers have often used the education gap to conjure images of poor people flocking to Trump, but the truth is, many of the people without college degrees who voted for Trump were from middle- and high-income households.”

Many, if not most, of these “observers” are quite confused and quite biased as well.  “Poor people” flocking to candidates is, again, only desirable when they are “flocking” to the appropriate liberal candidate.

“In short, the narrative that attributes Trump’s victory to a “coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters” just doesn’t square with the 2016 election data.  According to the election study, white non-Hispanic voters without college degrees making below the median household income made up only 25 percent of Trump voters.”

In a word, there are “uneducated voters” and then there are “uneducated voters.”

It would appear that it is the democrats who are a party of extremes.  They seem to be comprised mostly of college eggheads, highly paid entertainers, extreme social and environmental interest groups, high school drop-outs, high school graduates who haven’t furthered their education, and all of those who live off of the government and have no intent to better themselves.

In a recent National Review article (The National Review is recognized as a leading conservative magazine, but was exposed during the election as just another “swampy,” establishment, media outlet) about Trump’s alleged support among the working class bordered on a call to arms against the less fortunate, saying that, “The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles.  Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin,” and that “the truth about these dysfunctional downscale communities is that they deserve to die.”

According to Carnes and Lupu, “This kind of stereotyping and scapegoating is a dismaying consequence of the narrative that working-class Americans swept Trump into the White House.  What deserves to die isn’t America’s working-class communities.  It’s the myth that they’re the reason Trump was elected.”

Shame on you National Review, and shame on you Eugene Scott.

And thank you to Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu for reporting the facts and not twisting the facts to fit the liberal narrative.

 

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.

remember-when-you-said-trump-would-never-be-president-but-36286487

 

It’s not nice to speak ill of the dead, but former Senator John McCain was a vindictive, back stabbing, lying, establishment RINO weasel!   

Well, I think the title just about sums it up!

But how do I really feel?

Please refer to two of my previous blogs on John McCain from May 18, 2018: “Who was John McCain?  Who is John McCain?”  And “John McCain and James Comey are two ‘swampy’ peas in a ‘swampy’ pod!”

Many of the more recent developments surrounding the “fraudulent and libelous Steele dossier” continue to support my initial beliefs (Please see again the title of this blog).

Fox News’ Gregg Re reported that, “An associate of the late Arizona Republican, Sen. John McCain, shared with ‘Buzzfeed News’ a copy of the unverified, salacious opposition research dossier alleging that Russians had compromising material on President Trump, according to a bombshell federal court filing Wednesday [12/19/18].”

McCain, of course, has strongly denied that he was the source for “Buzzfeed” after it published the dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

I guess technically, McCain didn’t actually personally hand the dossier over to “Buzzfeed,” his “associate,” or “gofer,” or “flunky” did.  This is a typical weasel move, and it’s called plausible deniability, at least until your “associate” or other evidence hold your feet to the fire.

Gregg Re adds that, “In recent days, the dossier’s credibility has increasingly come under question, as the Yahoo News investigative reporter who broke news of its existence said many of its claims were “likely false,” and an adviser to ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen said Cohen never went to Prague to pay off Russian hackers, as alleged in the dossier.”

The “dossier’s credibility” has actually been in question for quite some time by many observers, not just in “recent days.”

Earlier this year, Fox News reported that a top McCain associate, David Kramer, had been briefed on the dossier written by British ex-spy Christopher Steele in late November 2016 in Surrey, England.  Kramer “took the fifth,” invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid testifying before House Republicans about his handling of the dossier.

So let’s take an appraisal of the situation at this point.

This is all happening AFTER Donald Trump has been elected president.  Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration, the FBI and the DOJ have already used the bogus dossier to get their FISA warrants and spy on the Trump campaign.  The only problem is it didn’t do any good and Donald Trump still won!  Now the FBI and the DOJ are into their fall back plan of trying to discredit the newly elected President Trump while covering their backsides along with the backsides of their other partners in crime, Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration.

So they (the FBI and the DOJ) came up with this plan to get their old “swampy” friend McCain, who doesn’t like Donald Trump and who is half a democrat anyway, to think he has discovered all of this juicy info on Donald Trump, which he passes on to the FBI (who have already had the dossier and used it for months already) and then leaks it to the press in an attempt to embarrass newly elected President Trump, thus doing all of the dirty work for the FBI and the DOJ.

You’re so gullible McFly…, I mean McCain!

I’m sure McCain had visions of grandeur, with himself being called a “hero” for exposing these vile deeds (even though they were all made up) by his friends in the “biased, liberal, fake news media,” all of the enemies of Trump, which included most politicians, republican and democrat, while at the same time taking an ounce of flesh from Donald Trump, who McCain hated with a passion.

So, the FBI and the DOJ now use the bogus dossier…, again, as a basis for launching the Special Counsel (the Mueller investigation).

You’ve got to hand it to them in one regard; you just couldn’t make this stuff up if it wasn’t true.

The only problem now is that McCain’s “associate” and “go-between” is singing like a bird.

I wonder if he uses Twitter!

Sorry about that one.  It was just too easy.

Anyway, according to Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne and Cyd Upson of Fox News, “The man who says he acted as a “go-between” last year to inform Sen. John McCain about the controversial “dossier” containing salacious allegations about then-candidate Donald Trump is speaking out, revealing how the ex-British spy who researched the document helped coordinate its release to the FBI, the media and Capitol Hill.

“My mission was essentially to be a go-between and a messenger, to tell the senator and assistants that such a dossier existed,” Sir Andrew Wood told Fox News in an exclusive interview with senior executive producer Pamela K. Browne.

Just after the U.S. presidential election in November of 2016, Arizona Sen. McCain spoke at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada.  Wood says he was instructed, by former British spy Christopher Steele, to reach out to the senior Republican, whom Wood called “a good man,” about the unverified document.

“Wood insists that he’s never read the dossier that his good friend and longtime colleague prepared.  It was commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS and funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.”

Along with the senator, Wood and McCain Institute for International Leadership staffer David J. Kramer attended the Canadian conference.

In January of 2017, McCain officially gave the dossier to the FBI, which already had its own copy from Steele.

The obvious question now is: What is the status of the Mueller investigation then?

Since the investigation was initiated based on the now debunked, “fraudulent and libelous Steele dossier,” should the investigation be terminated since it was obviously started under false pretenses?

I believe the answer is obviously “yes.”

As a matter of fact, I believe the whole situation warrants another Special Counsel to investigate those who actually committed the crimes here: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and various members of his administration, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Rod Rosenstein, and other upper level employees of the FBI and the DOJ.

Stay thirsty my friends!

 

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.

mccain dirtbag

 

Up and up The Fed’s interest rate goes, where it’ll stop nobody knows!

The Federal Reserve raised the nation’s borrowing rate by 0.25% for the fourth time this year, despite months of objections from President Trump.

According to Lucy Bayly, the business editor for NBC News, “President Trump fears higher interest rates will take the steam out of the nation’s booming economy.”

She continues by saying, “As head of the Federal Reserve, [Jay] Powell has found himself uncharacteristically singled out for criticism over the central bank’s handling of interest rates, with Trump saying he ‘maybe regretted nominating Powell to the position.’”

“I have a hot economy going,” President Trump said in October, and “every time we do something great, he raises the interest rates.”

Ms. Bayly feel sthat, “Powell’s challenge at this juncture has been to make it clear that the Fed’s decision was data driven and not due to any deference to the political establishment, which would have risked the central bank’s credibility as an independent agency.”

That’s kind of funny.  Why does it seem that “The Fed,” the central bank, only seems concerned about its credibility when there is a Republican president?

During an interview with “Yahoo Finance,” Edward Stringham, an economist, Professor of Economic Innovation at Trinity College and the president of the American Institute of Economic Research, said, “We’ve had artificially low interest rates for years.”  The Fed has apparently admitted to this because Mr. Stringham goes on to say that, “The Fed has said that they want to get away from that [artificially low interest rates].”

What does “artificially low interest rates” mean?  Why would The Fed be dealing with anything that is “artificial?” I take it to mean that The Fed had lowered the rates, or kept them low, for reasons other than financial and/or economic merit.

In other words, it sounds kind of “swampy” and politically motivated to me.

Well, let’s take a look at the recent history of The Federal Reserve Bank, how they’ve handled the rates, and you decide.

When George W. Bush took office in 2001, the interest rate was at 6%.

By June of 2003 the rate was down to 1% due to a recession, the 9/11 attacks, and a war in The Middle East.

The rate was then back up to 5.25% by June of 2006.

It then was down to 1% again by the end of Bush’s term, mostly due to another recession, the housing crisis, bank failures and the bank bailout.

On December 11, 2007, the rate dropped from 4.5% to 4.25%

January 22, 2008, the rate then plummeted to 3.5%

Only eight day later, on January 30, 2008, the rate went down to 3%

On March 18, 2008, the rate dropped to 2.25%

On April 30, 2008, the rate fell to 2%

On October 8, 2008, it fell to 1.5%

Twenty-one days later, on October 29, 2008, the rate dropped to 1%

After Barack Obama was elected president, on December 16, 2008, the rate went to .25%

Note: .25% is the lowest funds rate possible.

Then, for the following 7 YEARS, or basically most of the “Obama years,” the federal interest rate sat there at .25%!  For 7 YEARS!!!

It wasn’t until December of 2015 that they managed to raise the rate to .5%.

The rate stayed at .5% all of 2016 until Donald Trump won the election, at which time the rate immediately went up to .75%.

So, even though all of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” financial “experts” were predicting a stock market crash if Donald Trump won, and all kinds of other economic misfortune, The Federal Reserve felt it was a good time to raise the federal interest rate.

Interesting.  Ponder that for a moment.

Then over the next two years of the Trump Presidency, The Fed chooses to raise the rate 6 more times, all the way back to 2.25%!

On March 16, 2017, the rate goes to 1%

On June 15, 2017, we’re up to 1.25%

On December 14, 2017, the rate goes up to 1.5%

On March 22, 2018, it climbs to 1.75

On Jun 14, 2018, 2%

On September 27, 2018, 2.25%

And on December 19, 2018, The Fed raised it another .25 to 2.5%

 

“The economy continues to punch well above its weight,” said Steve Rick, chief economist at CUNA Mutual Group. “Although trade tensions and tariffs continue to present uncertainty, the economy has been running red-hot for a long time…”

Is that what you call “a long time” Mr. Rick, a little over a year?

It seems these economists and know-it-all eggheads are in quite a hurry to slow our economy down.

Why?

Why was it OK for Americans to sit through all of these down times for close to two decades, but then when we finally turn it around they want to throw down all of these speed bumps?

What do you think?  Is it a case of “the swamp’s” willingness to sabotage the country for the sake of their own survival and desire for power?

I’m thinking that is the case, but then again, I’m becoming more and more cynical by the day.

 

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.

federal interest rates

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑