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

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

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

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

Wait…, say what?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beautiful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s take a look.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Dershowitz is definitely not mincing words here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

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

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

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

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

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

According to “Investor’s Business Daily:”

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Is that not a crisis at the border?

Wait…, there’s more.

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

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

Let’s put those numbers in perspective.

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

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

But wait…, there’s more.

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

Oh goody!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Jimmy Carter:

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

President Ronald Reagan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President George H.W. Bush:

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

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

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

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

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

President Bill Clinton:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President George W. Bush:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Barack Obama:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Donald Trump:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

trump national emergency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

russian hoax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WINNING!

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

russian collusion

 

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

President Trump asks The Congress to choose greatness.  My State of the Union address analysis: Part 1.

There were quite a few memorable moments from President Trump’s State of the Union address last night.  But it was at the end of his speech, when he was appealing directly to The Congress, that The President’s message especially resonated.

As the cameras panned the audience of elected Congress people and Senators, you could see that they were actually paying attention, intently listening to The President, as he pulled them in and attempted to enlist them all in his cause:

“Here tonight, we have legislators from across this magnificent republic. You have come from the rocky shores of Maine and the volcanic peaks of Hawaii; from the snowy woods of Wisconsin and the red deserts of Arizona; from the green farms of Kentucky and the golden beaches of California. Together, we represent the most extraordinary Nation in all of history.”

“What will we do with this moment?  How will we be remembered?”

“I ask the men and women of this Congress: Look at the opportunities before us! Our most thrilling achievements are still ahead. Our most exciting journeys still await. Our biggest victories are still to come. We have not yet begun to dream.”

“We must choose whether we are defined by our differences, or whether we dare to transcend them.”

“We must choose whether we will squander our inheritance, or whether we will proudly declare that we are Americans.  We do the incredible. We defy the impossible.  We conquer the unknown.”

“This is the time to re-ignite the American imagination.  This is the time to search for the tallest summit, and set our sights on the brightest star. This is the time to rekindle the bonds of love and loyalty and memory that link us together as citizens, as neighbors, as patriots.”

“This is our future, our fate, and our choice to make.  I am asking you to choose greatness.”

“No matter the trials we face, no matter the challenges to come, we must go forward together.”

“We must keep America first in our hearts.  We must keep freedom alive in our souls.  And we must always keep faith in America’s destiny, that one Nation, under God, must be the hope and the promise and the light and the glory among all the nations of the world!”

“Thank you. God Bless You, God Bless America, and good night!”

By the time he hit “thank you,’ it seemed like he had the audience mesmerized.

It seemed like for those last two minutes they all had dropped their partisan political guards just a bit, and we were all able to glimpse some of the potential that exists when our representatives choose to do their jobs like they were intended to do in the spirit of constructive compromise, with the best interests of our country and its people in mind.

Stay tuned for my more detailed analysis of The State of the Union address: Part 2 tomorrow.

 

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 at state of the union 2019

 

Louis Farrakhan is suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Louis Farrakhan, the “leader of The Nation of Islam,” is calling for a “separate state” for Black Americans.  He says this is, “what God wants,” while any blacks that oppose his calling he describes as “slaves.”

According to Lukas Mikelionis of Fox News, “Farrakhan, who in recent months has made numerous anti-Semitic comments, made his call for a nation-state separate from white America in response to the question whether it’s still his and the group’s goal.”

“That’s not just my goal. That’s what God wants. Most of our people don’t want it here,” Farrakhan has said. “You love your enemy. You want to stay with your enemy. You’re in love with his wealth. I understand the fascination, slaves. I understand that. But God has something else for us.”

“The preacher went on to reiterate that neither he nor his group has changed its goal of a separate state since its creation in the 1960s.”

‘“Let me tell you what’s gonna happen. Yes I’m after a separate state. A separate nation. In the 60s what was our cry? We weren’t saying we want to integrate, we were saying ‘It’s nation time!’ he said.”

‘“Black Power. Black Power to do what? To integrate a lunch counter? Black Power to build a nation for 40 million, now near 50 million, black people,’ he added.”

‘“Yes I’m after a separate state. A separate nation. In the 60s what was our cry? We weren’t saying we want to integrate, we were saying It’s nation time!’”

Well…, let’s step back a moment Mr. Farrakhan, and take a look at what exactly we have here.

There are 325.7 million people in The United States.

“Blacks” make up only 12.6% of the population.  Does that surprise you?  The way “Blacks” act you would think they make up close to 50% of the population.  The truth is they truly are a minority…, and a small minority at that.

And how many of those “Blacks” are only half “Black?”  How many of those “Blacks” are half White, or half Asian, or half Latino?  The actual percent of true “Blacks” is really under 10% probably.

You say you want to build a nation for, “40 million, now near 50 million, black people.”

The truth is that “Black” people account for about 41 million people in The United States.  Nowhere near even approaching 50 million.

Now let’s take a look your “The Nation of Islam.”

“The Nation of Islam” is estimated (and why they don’t have a more exact count is confusing to me) to have 20,000-50,000 members.

I personally question that low figure of 20,000.  I believe it is even much less than that.

But, be that as it may, using their numbers, that’s still less than 1% of African Americans, and less than .01% of the total U.S. population.

So in reality, Louis Farrakhan is in no position to think he is representing African Americans, in general, at all.

You say you want a “separate state.”  What state exactly would that be?  Montana, Idaho…, Arizona?

And how exactly would that work?

And you frame your desire as if there is someone out here who could grant your wish.

Why would anyone establish a “black state” for you?

Perhaps you should buy an island and move your measly group of followers there and see how you would do.

Lukas Mikelionis added, “In November, Farrakhan and his groupies went on a solidarity trip to Iran and led “Death to America” chants.”

“During the trip, Farrakhan told Iranian students that ‘America has never been a democracy,’ and also led a ‘Death to Israel’ chant at the end of his talk, Iranian news agencies reported.”

I know!  Perhaps Iran would give you a portion of their country to establish your “Black State?”

Or maybe some country in Africa would welcome you back and grant you some land to “homestead” on?

Somehow, I’m guessing that’s not really what you want.

In reality, I don’t think you really know what you want.  In reality, I don’t think you’ve really thought this whole thing through…, which would be par for the course in your case.

You’re all hot air and no action Mr. Farrakhan.  If you want your own state, do something about it instead of just talking about it.  Go establish a town somewhere.  15,000-20,000 people is a small town in America.

Why don’t you start there and work up to a “nation” at a later date?

Conservatives actually have no problem with anyone creating their own destiny.  It’s your friends, the liberals, who would prefer you don’t leave “the plantation,” however.

Minister Farrakhan has actually endorsed and praised President Trump in the past, but he has been critical of him as well.  Farrakhan’s message of independence and taking responsibility for your own destiny is one most conservatives would support.  It’s too bad he has to “lob those racism bombs” out there every so often.

Farrakhan is in a politically peculiar spot.  Conservatives can’t support him because of his racist tendencies, and liberals can’t disavow him because…, well…, because he’s Black, and he’s not technically a conservative.

Isn’t it a funny world that we live in?

 

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.

farrakhan

 

Is California voter fraud a fraud?

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

voter fraud schumer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per “Judicial Watch’s” website:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are a couple interesting facts:

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

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

 

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

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

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

Interesting.

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

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

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

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

So, there you have it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that what you mean?

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

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

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

voter-fraud

 

Let the 2020 election games begin!

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

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

And Howard Schultz would be an interesting candidate.

What’s so interesting about him you ask?

Well…, let me tell ya.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

howard schultz

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

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑