Let’s play a picture game!

I’m going to show you a sequence of pictures.

See if you can see something they all have in common.

flags 1

flags 2

flags 3

flags 4

flags 5

flags 6

flags 7

flags 8

flags 9

flags 10

flags 11

Well…, what do you think?

Yes…, these are all either pictures from “caravans” headed to our southern border or people attempting to enter our country illegally.

But…, the answer I was looking for is they all show migrants waving a flag that is typically blue and white.

No American flags, however.

The flags we see in these pictures are all from either Honduras,

flags 12

Guatemala,

flags 13

or El Salvador.

flags 14

The question is, why would you travel over 1,000 miles, on foot, to escape a country that is supposedly oppressing you to the point that you have to seek political asylum in another country, but then wave the flag of the country that you were forced to escape from?

If you desired political asylum from the United States, wouldn’t you be carrying and waving an American flag?

Wouldn’t someone…, anyone…, be carrying an American flag?

In fact…, I dare you to find a picture of migrants making their way to America, carrying an American flag.

These people aren’t  fleeing for their lives…, they’re fleeing for their wallets.

They’re fleeing to America to get on the gravy train…, not the freedom train.

It’s not that big of a deal I guess.  I just normally like a “kiss” before I get screwed.

Just sayin’.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

This is what happens when the government doesn’t take care of its responsibilities.

According to The Constitution, our federal government isn’t really specifically tasked with a lot…, but in Article 1, Section 8, Item 1 it states: “The Congress shall… provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…”

When citizens feel threatened and the federal government is not providing the proper laws…, enforcing the laws…, or generally protecting or providing “domestic tranquility,” “the common defense,” “the general Welfare,” and “the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” people will protect themselves.

It’s the American way.

In this instance, a New Mexico militia group detained migrants, who crossed our border illegally, at gunpoint until the Border Patrol could arrive.

vigilantes 1

I would call these people heroes.

According to Danielle Wallace for Fox News, “An armed right-wing militia group operating along the U.S.-Mexico border posted several videos to social media this week, including one in which they held about 200 asylum-seeking migrants at gunpoint near Sunland Park, N.M., until U.S. Border Patrol agents arrived, according to a report.”

Before we proceed, let’s put this reporting in the proper perspective.

Okay, Danielle.  First off, I have an issue with you when you label these people as “an armed right-wing militia group.”  Can’t we just say they are a militia group or a group of vigilantes?  Do we ever see any other groups labeled as “left-wing” groups?  No…, we don’t.

Second of all, the people that were held are described as “asylum-seeking migrants.”  The truth is you really have no idea who all of these people are or what they want, and you left out the word “ILLEGAL.”  These are ILLEGAL immigrants who crossed our southern border ILLEGALLY.

Okay…, that being said…, let’s continue.

“The militia group, which calls itself the United Constitutional Patriots, said, ‘… it is determined to monitor the border until President Trump fulfills his campaign promise of a border wall or until Congress enacts stronger legislation to make it more difficult for migrants to request asylum,’ Jim Benvie, a spokesman, told The New York Times in a phone interview.”

‘“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,’ the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is ‘completely unacceptable’ that migrants be ‘menaced or threatened’ upon entering the U.S.”

“The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that ‘the Trump administration’s vile racism’ emboldened these groups.”

“Carlos A. Diaz, a spokesperson for Customs and Border Protection, would not divulge specific details about the scene in the video or about the United Constitutional Patriots, but said in a statement that Border Patrol ‘does not endorse private groups or organizations taking enforcement matters into their own hands.’”

Well Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham…, let’s begin with you.

It does not “go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone.”  In fact, in the nearby illegal immigrant friendly state of California, in section 837 of the California Penal Code, it says, “A private person may arrest another: For a public offense committed or attempted in his/her presence.  When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his/her presence.  When a felony has been in fact committed, and he or she has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.”

So, no, Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham…, it does not go without saying.

In addition, you continue by saying that, “it is completely unacceptable that migrants be menaced or threatened upon entering the U.S.”  But apparently it is acceptable that some of these (and she left out the word ILLEGAL as well) migrants go on to “menace” and “threaten” law-abiding U.S. citizens.

vigilantes 2

vigilantes 3

vigilantes 4

In my opinion, you are a disgrace of a governor Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham, and the state of New Mexico should be ashamed for having elected you.

I guess, in the end, people get what they deserve.  Good luck with that New Mexico.

Then we have The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) saying in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” has emboldened these [militia] groups.”

The ACLU has already lost any semblance of credibility it may have had at one time…, but in response I would like to say that the inaction of the U.S. Congress and many prior presidents, along with the actions of many of the current democrat politicians and their supporters, has emboldened these illegal immigrants to put unprecedented pressure on our southern border.

There is no racism being demonstrated here.  Being “illegal” is not a matter of race…, it’s a matter of law.

vigilantes 6

Lastly we have a spokesperson for Customs and Border Protection, Carlos A. Diaz, saying that the Border Patrol “does not endorse private groups or organizations taking enforcement matters into their own hands.”

With all due respect…, and I am saying “with all due respect,” Mr. Diaz, patriotic citizens of this country don’t need your endorsement…, and these patriots only “take matters into their own hands” when the government is not taking care of their business for one reason or another.

Hard working, God fearing, Americans don’t need these politicians who have their heads up their backsides to figure out what’s right and what’s wrong…, we already know.  We just hope they figure it out sooner than later.

vigilantes 5

Until that time these patriots will just have to help them do their job…, for their own sakes and ours.

WINNING!

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Crisis?  What crisis?

The democrats are always crying that “this” is a crisis and “that” is a crisis.  But when they are asked to acknowledge and deal with a real crisis they choose to take the political low road, stick their heads in the sand, and not only pretend like there is no crisis, but denounce those who call a situation for what it is and attempt to do something about it.

Even though the democrats chose to ignore her last report and actually walk out of her presentation, The Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, was back again and issued a dire assessment of the migration crisis on the southern border, telling a House committee that illegal immigration is “spiraling out of control” and predicting that crisis will “get even worse” in the coming months.

According to Adam Shaw of Fox News, “The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) is warning that the Border Patrol is at its ‘breaking point’ as apprehensions skyrocket.  Children and families now make up more than half of those in custody on the southern border, according to Customs and Border Patrol.”

“Secretary Nielsen also said in a startling revelation that, ‘Customs and Border Protection is on track to apprehend almost 1 million illegal immigrants at the border this year.’”

‘“In February, we saw a 30 percent jump over the previous month, with agents apprehending or encountering nearly 75,000 aliens,’ Nielsen told the House Committee on Homeland Security. ‘This is an 80 percent increase over the same time last year. And I can report today that CBP is forecasting the problem will get even worse this spring as the weather warms up.’”

‘“We want to strengthen legal immigration and welcome more individuals through a merit-based system that enhances our economic vitality and the vibrancy of our diverse nation. We also will continue to uphold our humanitarian ideals,’ she said. ‘But illegal immigration is simply spiraling out of control and threatening public safety and national security.’”

Shaw adds that, “Nielsen’s testimony came a day after the Trump administration released figures showing that more than 2,000 migrants are apprehended each day, a total of 268,000 since the beginning of the fiscal year. DHS reports that the Border Patrol is apprehending illegal immigrants at the highest rate since 2007.”

And remember…, we’re only talking about those we caught.  How many illegal immigrants are coming across that we don’t even know about?

Two times as many?

Three times as many?

Five times as many?

Ten times as many?

Think about it.

How many people who are driving drunk actually get caught?

How many people who speed actually get ticketed?

See what I mean?

‘“We face a crisis, a real, serious, and sustained crisis at our borders. We have tens of thousands of illegal aliens arriving at our doorstep every month. We have drugs, criminals, and violence spilling into our country every week,’ she said.”

“Nielsen predicted disaster if migrant flows escalate: ‘Our capacity is already severely strained, but these increases will overwhelm the system entirely.’”

‘“This is not a ‘manufactured’ crisis. This is truly an emergency,’ she said.”

The Border Patrol has reported a 300 percent spike in illegal crossings at the border, but the media is opting to turn a blind eye, since it just doesn’t represent the narrative they want to present…, that there is no emergency at the southern border, in the attempt to discredit President Trump and his determination that there is a national crisis on our southern border.

“Trump’s declaration would give him access to about $3.6 billion for projects on the border, but the move has seen fierce opposition from Democrats and some Republicans, several of whom are expected to support a congressional rebuke of the emergency declaration, which could, in turn, prompt Trump’s first-ever veto. The House has already passed the measure.”

“Meanwhile, in prepared testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan said in testimony that the initial investments in Trump’s wall project were being put ‘to good use’ and barriers in key areas have ‘made an immediate impact’ in stopping illegal immigration in hot spots.”

But Nielsen’s comments seemed likely to be brushed off by Democrats…, again.  Before Secretary Nielsen even spoke, Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, a democrat from Mississippi, criticized Trump’s “non-existent emergency” at the border, as he parroted the standard democrat talking points while choosing to ignore reality.

Our democrat/socialist friends always like to point to Denmark, Finland, and Sweden as examples of how “good socialistic” countries handle these types of issues.  So let’s take a look at how these countries are dealing with the problem of illegal immigration.

Let’s start with Denmark.

Christopher Brito of CBS News reports that, “The Danish government has come up with a plan to send dozens of rejected migrants to a remote island that currently houses a research center conducting tests on diseased animals.”

Hmmm.  Well that sounds interesting. I’m skeptical as to whether anybody in the U.S. Congress would support these actions, however.

“Denmark’s government reached an agreement under its new finance bill for 2019 to decontaminate Lindholm Island, located around two miles from the nearest shore, and then use it hold as many as 100 people by 2021, according to a government website. Among the migrants who could be sent to the island are criminals, rejected asylum seekers and others who can’t return to their home country ‘due to the risk of ill-treatment.’”

“100 people by 2021!?”  The U.S. probably deals with 100 illegal immigrants on an hourly basis.

‘“If you are unwanted in Danish society, you should not be a nuisance to ordinary Danes,’ Denmark’s immigration minister Inger Støjberg wrote on Facebook. ‘“They are undesirable in Denmark, and they must feel it.’”

“It’s not the first time Denmark has taken controversial actions aimed toward migrants amid a wave of populism throughout Europe. In August, the nation banned garments covering the face, including traditional Islamic veils such as the niqab or burqa.”

Obviously we can’t model our handling of illegal immigrants on Denmark’s system.

How about Finland?

According to Virginia Hale of Breitbart News, “Police forces across Finland are carrying out a search for illegal immigrants in a six-day crackdown on aliens living in the country without permission, local media reported.”

“In the period between March 12 and 18, officers will be carrying out identity checks in public places such as restaurants and shopping centers where they suspect illegal immigrants are at large based on intelligence held by police forces in advance.”

Ha!  I know this definitely would fly in the good ole’ USA!

And the democrats are complaining about our own ICE agents in the United States.

“In practice, this means that when a person who is being checked turns out to be foreign, officers will check their immigration status and relevant papers,” said Finnish police chief Mia Poutanen.”

Around 3,000 illegal immigrants are caught each year in Finland as a result of targeted initiatives lasting several days like the one taking place this week.”

Wow…, 3,000?!  That many?  In a year?

In the U.S. we are dealing with that many illegal immigrants per day on a slow day!

Ok…, how about Sweden?  Surely Sweden can show us the way.

According to Johan Ahlander and Mansoor Yosufzai for “Reuters,” “Sweden has intensified its crackdown on illegal immigrants after a failed asylum-seeker killed five people in Stockholm, but the move has raised concerns that more migrants will be driven underground to join a shadowy underclass.”

“In the past months, police have staged wider sweeps on workplaces to check papers, netting undocumented workers, sending a warning to employers and sparking heated debate in a nation that has been traditionally tolerant to migrants.”

“Tough measures against immigrants go against the grain for many in Sweden, a country of 10 million (about the population of North Carolina) which once called itself “a humanitarian superpower” that generously welcomed migrants fleeing conflict in the Middle East and Africa.”

“But attitudes appear to be changing and a 2017 study by Gothenburg University showed 52 percent favored taking fewer refugees into the country with 24 percent opposed. Two years ago 40 percent backed reducing refugee numbers with 37 opposed.”

“The Social Democrats, the Sweden’s biggest party in every election since 1917 and leader of the governing coalition, has been forced to balance its traditional left-wing credentials with the need to enforce immigration laws.”

“The government never discloses how many are held in detention centers, saying there are about 360 beds and deportees are normally repatriated within three weeks. The government has told the migration agency to add another 100 beds.”

Ohhh the pain!  360 beds!  Oh my God.

Please note that the United States operates with over 40,000 detention center beds, and President Trump has asked for those levels to be increased to 52,000 beds!

“In 2016, police made about 1,100 unannounced workplace checks, almost three times more than in 2015, and caught 232 illegal immigrants.”

I believe we caught about that many illegal immigrants in one hour last year when we raided one company!

So not even Sweden provides us with a good immigration option.

The truth is, compared to any time in our past and compared to any other country in the world, the situation on our southern border with Mexico IS A NATIONAL EMERGENCY regarding illegal immigration, illegal drug trafficking, and human trafficking.  Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is just a disingenuous liar, plain and simple.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Illegal-Immigrant-Superior-Rights-In-USA

 

The disingenuous “biased, liberal, fake news media” tries to paint President Trump as a liar…, again, regarding Mexico and the border wall. 

According to Ying Ma of Fox News, “Trump-haters are again foaming at the mouth over comments made by The President regarding the border wall he has promised to build.  Once again, they are wrong about their criticism of the president.”

“President Trump noted last week that his campaign promise to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it ‘obviously’ did not mean getting a check from the Mexican government directly.  Rather, he said, Mexico will be paying for the wall indirectly, ‘many, many times over’ via the trade agreement his administration recently renegotiated with Canada and Mexico to replace NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement).”

“The anti-Trump media wasted no time accusing the president of lying. CNN, featuring all-out indignation from its anchors, promptly replayed video footage from Trump campaign rallies showing Trump and his raucous crowds chanting that Mexico will pay for the wall.”

“The Washington Post has chimed in as well and declared in a headline: ‘Trump falsely asserts he never promised Mexico would directly pay for the border wall.’”

“Meanwhile, Politifact screamed out its own verdict: ‘Trump says he didn’t say Mexico would write US a check for border wall.  But he did.’”

Before our friends in the “biased, liberal. Fake news media” go getting too excited, let’s remember that it was only a couple weeks ago that the congress finally authorized any wall spending, and only $1.375 billion at that, so there hasn’t even been an opportunity for Mexico to kick in for anything until just recently.

Nevertheless, it is extremely disingenuous for his critics to huff and puff over what they perceive as a lie.

Do you recall such an uproar after former President Obama declared, “If you like your doctor you can keep doctor.  If you like your plan you can keep your plan.”  Or how about, “Every family will save $2,500 on this plan on average.”  Or how about, “The Affordable Care Act” (ObamaCare) won’t add one dime to the federal deficit.”

I sure don’t, and these were actual premeditated lies…, just to name a few!

It’s just another example to the “biased, liberal, fake news media” and their propaganda by omission.

“One could disagree with the substance [of President Trump’s claims], but those pretending to be honest and objective observers of President Trump should at least try to understand why ‘build the wall’ … became a rallying cry during the last presidential campaign.”

“The chant reflected voters’ frustration that Mexico was engaging in unfair practices, whether in trade or immigration, while politicians in Washington on both the left and the right did nothing about it”

“Candidate Trump promised to change this.  If Trump-haters paid attention to this core idea, they might understand why Trump supporters care far more about whether the president builds the wall and strengthen border security than they care about whether Mexico pays for the wall directly or indirectly.”

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

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

build the wall

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

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

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

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

According to “Investor’s Business Daily:”

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Is that not a crisis at the border?

Wait…, there’s more.

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

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

Let’s put those numbers in perspective.

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

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

But wait…, there’s more.

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

Oh goody!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Jimmy Carter:

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

President Ronald Reagan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President George H.W. Bush:

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

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

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

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

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

President Bill Clinton:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President George W. Bush:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Barack Obama:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Donald Trump:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

trump national emergency

The President appealed to lawmakers in both parties to, “Rise above partisan politics and define victory as not winning for one party but winning for our country.”  My State of the Union address analysis: Part 2.

Liz Peek for Fox News reported that, “In a speech that was interrupted 102 times by applause, President Trump rocked the House, delivering remarks that were at times moving, funny, inspiring, feisty and visionary.”

I would have to totally agree with Ms. Peek here.  I was very impressed by The President’s tone, his overall presence, and his words.

“He appealed to lawmakers in both parties to rise above partisan politics and define victory as “not winning for one party but winning for our country.”

The President “Framed his speech as a celebration of two great occasions: the 75th anniversary of D-Day that liberated Europe [and saved the world’s civilization] from the Nazis and the 50th anniversary of America’s [Apollo 11] moon landing.  Heroes from both those historic undertakings were in the gallery, personifying the daring and selflessness that has characterized the United States throughout our history.”

He asked Democrats to partner with him in “choosing greatness” and to “keep freedom alive in our souls.”

“He exhorted Congress to ‘think of this very chamber, where lawmakers before you voted to end slavery, to build the railroads and the highways, to defeat fascism, to secure civil rights, to face down an evil empire.’”

The democrat side of the aisle honestly seemed petty and a bit foolish in comparison.

There was even a large group of democrat female representatives who wore white to represent something, or show some kind of unity.  They all characteristically chose to “thumb their noses” at President Trump’s accomplishments, and the country’s historic economic numbers.

Liz Peek added, “The Democrats also pouted as the president listed the economic gains made during his administration. They did not cheer when he said 5.3 million new jobs have been added, including 600,000 manufacturing jobs.”

“Nor did the Democrats cheer when the president cited the all-time low in African-American, Asian-American and Hispanic unemployment and the uptick in the incomes of blue-collar workers.”

“Do Democrats not approve of putting people to work?”

Do they not approve of 5 million people being lifted off of food stamps?

Do they not approve of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs being brought back to our country?

Do they not approve of us being self-sufficient, energy-wise, in the world?

Do they not approve of our NATO allies finally kicking in their fair share for their own defense spending?

It sure appeared that way, as democrats declined to applaud, and even smirked at the country’s good fortune.

President Trump did manage to break through their grumpiness, however, by pointing to the record number of women working in the United States today and the all-time high number of women in Congress. Even the “women in white” couldn’t help but celebrate themselves.

One of The President’s guests in the gallery was a survivor of Nazi concentration camps who was enjoying his 81st birthday.  It was enjoyable to see the entire House join in singing “Happy Birthday” to him.  That was certainly a first at a State of the Union address.

“In fairness, even while calling for a ‘new era of cooperation,’ [President] Trump threw some partisan zingers into the mix.  He singled out bills recently introduced in Virginia and passed in New York that allow for late-term abortions, and said he would ask Congress to pass legislation banning such procedures.”

“In addition, The President hammered home his determination to secure our ‘dangerous’ border, and the need for a wall.  To make the point, he introduced some family members of an elderly couple killed by an illegal immigrant.  Democrats were not pleased.”

How can you not be concerned with illegal drugs pouting over our southern border?

How can you not be concerned with thousands of young girls and children being taken advantage of by human trafficers at our southern border?

How can you not be concerned with gang members and other dangerous individuals coming across our southern border and committing crimes against and taking the lives of our citizens?

Just who do these democrat representatives represent exactly?

They didn’t account for themselves very well during the State of the Union address in my opinion.

The President added that “Great nations do not fight endless wars,” which is a statement no one can really argue with, as he is winding down our engagements in Afghanistan and Syria.

Liz Peek commented, “But for sure, the most contentious issue, and the one that continues to hang over the country, is immigration. Trump said no other issue better illustrates the divide between the working class and members of the wealthy [elite] political class, who hide behind walls [and gates and armed guards] while blue-collar workers suffer the lower wages, overburdened schools, [crime] and depleted safety nets that illegal immigration causes.”

“It will be interesting to see how Democrats answer that charge.”

“President Trump asked us all to ‘rekindle the bonds of love and loyalty and memory that link us together as citizens, as neighbors, as patriots.’”

“He vowed, as he has before, to put America’s interests first and, notably, promised that America will never be a socialist country.”

“Even Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer applauded that one.”

A CBS poll, conducted during and directly after The President’s speech, showed that 76% of viewers liked what they heard.

Since polling numbers regarding The President typically seem to skew low; that would translate into an 85%-90% positive approval rating of The President’s speech.

I would tend to agree with them.

In retrospect, I’m glad The President didn’t take my advice and hold his own State of the Union address away from The Capitol.  He definitely came away here as being the bigger person, the more reasonable person and the more responsible person.

Congratulations Mr. President.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

trump state of the union address 2019

Well, well, well, what have we here?  A petition to oust Nancy Pelosi surpasses 100,000 signatures?!

According to the WorldNetDaily (WND.com) website, “Amid all the talk about impeaching President Trump, more than 100,000 people have signed a White House “We the People” petition calling for the impeachment of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, accusing her of treason.”

Be still my little ole’ conservative heart!  But wait…, what’s a “White House ‘We the People’ Petition?”

It turns out that “The ‘We the People’ Petitioning System,” on the official White House website, was actually initiated by the Obama administration!

Okay…, so if Obama initiated it, it can’t be bashed as being some type of conservative shenanigans!

Gee…, thanks Obama!

The “Petitioning System” promises an official response for every petition that gathers more than 100,000 signatures within 30 days.

This Pelosi petition has garnered over 100,000 signatures after just its first 11 days!

This particular petition, “…was created by a citizen identified only as ‘M.G.,’ and it accuses Pelosi of being a traitor to the American people who is beholden to the interests of illegal immigrants, Big League Politics reported.”

“The petition further blames the San Francisco Democrat for the recent partial government shutdown. It argues she refused to negotiate with President Trump over funding for border security, causing many federal employees to work without pay for more than a month.”

‘“Illegal aliens are enemies that invade our country with drugs, human trafficking, and terrorist causing death and crime to American citizens,’ the petition states.”

‘“Nancy Pelosi adheres to these enemies by voting for and providing them aid and comfort through Sanctuary policies funded by US citizen tax dollars, and refuses to protect American people by refusing to fund our border wall, leaving our borders open and unsafe.’”

“After further complaints about the House speaker, it concludes with, ‘IMPEACH Pelosi for treason!’”

Big League Politics noted the process for impeaching a member of the House requires a majority vote of the chamber, meaning it’s unlikely to happen under the current Democrat majority.

Darn it!

These rules always have to wreck all the fun!

I will have to keep my eyes peeled for the “official response,” however.

“LOCK HER UP! (Both of them!)

“LOCK HER UP! (Both of them!)

“LOCK HER UP! (Both of them!)

 

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.

nancypelosiilliegalimmigrants

 

“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

 

Our friend Cher is at it again! She claims, “America is unsafe for anyone that isn’t a white Trump supporter!”

Cher has taken to social media…, again…, to declare American unsafe for anyone who isn’t a white Trump supporter.

Well that’s not racist at all!

Her rant follows a Supreme Court ruling that allows the Pentagon to restrict military service for transgender individuals.

According to Tyler McCarthy of Fox News, “Cher, who is typically outspoken about her distaste for the Trump administration, took to the [Twitter] platform to criticize the ruling, which grants authority to enforce a ban on those who identify as transgender from serving in the military while lower courts continue to argue the legality of the policy.”

“No One Is Really Safe In trump’s America Unless They’re MEMBERS OF MAR-A-LAGO, LIVE IN trump TOWER,White, OR WEARS MAGA HAT,” Cher wrote on Twitter. “My Amazing Trans Son Is Kind,Smart,Strong Loving, Talented,&Patriotic American. Trump “Judges NO ONE By The Content Of Their Character.”

cher in danger

Oh really, Cher?  Do you mean “not safe” like when conservative politicians or staff are harassed and attacked in restaurants and other public places like “Low IQ” Maxine Waters instructed them to do?

Or maybe you’re referring to “not being safe” like when conservative speakers are scheduled to speak at one of our institutions of higher learning and conservative students are attacked, building are trashed and fires are started? Is that what you mean?

How about “not being safe” like when your friendly ANTIFA hit squads attack peaceful conservative supporters or protesters?

No wait…, I know!  It must be like when republican congressmen are used for target practice while practicing for a friendly game of softball!  That’s it!

Excuse me, Cher, but you are so F-O-S!

And Tyler McCarthy of Fox News says, “This is just the latest in a recent stream of tweets from Cher. While her comments on the transgender military ban are new, she’s been vehemently against the ongoing government shutdown, blaming Donald Trump and calling for Nancy Pelosi and Democrats to give in to his demands for border security funding.”

Here’s a sampling of more of her recent tweets:

“NANCY PLEASE…. Give THE HEARTLESS BASTARD His BloodMoney,Then Nail His Mammoth A– to The Barn Door ON EVERYTHING ELSE‼️”

“BEAT HIM TO A PULP IN CONGRESS‼️ITS NOT RIGHT TO DO THIS TO OUR PPL🇺🇸‼️”

“WE ARE NOT SAFE BECAUSE OF trump.NOTHING CAN BE WORTH THIS,” she tweeted prior to her comments on the military ban.

In a more recent tweet, Cher called out the president directly.

“TRUMP’S DESTROYING [America] MAKING US UNSAFE.I DONT GIVE A FLYING F— ABOUT HIS WALL,WHO BLINKS  FIRST, WHO WINS GAME OF [CHICKEN]. COASTGUARD’S TOP ADMIRAL SAYS”THIS CANT GO ON”.FBI SAYS THERE WONT B MANPOWER 2KEEP US SAFE. DEMS,DOES A HOUSE HAVE 2 FALL ON UR SISTER,4 U 2 GET IT.(Wiz of Oz),” she wrote.

This is a good example of what happens when you get the majority of your information from the “biased, liberal, fake news media,” like CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC.

Why do these aging Hollywood dinosaurs, like Cher here, Barbra Streisand, Robert DeNiro, et al, insist on displaying their ignorance and stupidity on a regular basis?

It is, of course, their right, but how about getting a clue once in a while!?

 

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.

cher trainwreck

 

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑