For all of the hullabaloo and shaming we are subjected to regarding recycling, ONLY ABOUT 5%-6% OF RECYCLABLE ITEMS WE DISCARD ARE ACTUALLY RECYCLED.
Does this surprise you? It surprised me.
I knew they didn’t recycle everything they got, but only 5%-6%?!
I always considered myself to be a bit of an environmentalist, and all things being equal, I would always choose to do what is best for our environment.
I mean, who doesn’t think clean air, clean water, and a litter-free environment is a good idea?
But again, ONLY ABOUT 5%-6% OF RECYCLABLE ITEMS WE DISCARD ARE ACTUALLY RECYCLED.
So, basically, all of the recycling hoops we jump through are there just to make us feel better, about using plastics, mainly.
I apologize if I have burst your “I’m doing good because I recycle bubble,” but please don’t shoot the messenger. It’s true that ignorance is bliss, but blissful ignorance isn’t really doing anyone, or anything, any favors.
The plastic industry and the packaging industries just keep perpetuating the lies about recycling plastics, while most of the plastic waste ends up in landfills, is burned, or is dumped into our oceans.
Please see my prior blog about the HUGE amount of garbage in our oceans:
Ben Tracy for CBS News reports, “Critics call out plastics industry over ‘fraud of plastic recycling’”
“Jan Dell is a former chemical engineer who has spent years telling an inconvenient truth about plastics. ‘So many people, they see the recyclable label, and they put it in the recycle bin,’ she said. ‘But the vast majority of plastics are not recycled.’”
“About 48 million tons of plastic waste is generated in the U.S. each year; only 5 to 6 percent of it is actually recycled, according to the Department of Energy. The rest ends up in landfills or is burned.”
“Dell founded a non-profit, The Last Beach Cleanup, to fight plastic pollution. Inside her garage in Southern California is all sorts of plastic with those little arrows on it that make us think they can be recycled, but, she said, ‘You’re being lied to.’”
At this point, is there ANYTHING we’re not being lied to about?
“Those so-called chasing arrows started showing up on plastic products in 1988, part of a push to convince the public that plastic waste wasn’t a problem because it can be recycled.”
“Davis Allen, an investigative researcher with the Center for Climate Integrity, said the industry didn’t need for recycling to work, ‘they just needed people to believe that it was working,’ he said.”
Kind of like the COVID vaccinations, I guess. But I digress.
“A new report, called ‘The Fraud of Plastic Recycling,’ accuses the plastics industry of a decades-long campaign to mislead the public about the viability of plastic recycling,’ despite knowing the ‘technical and economic limitations that make plastics unrecyclable’ on a large scale.”
I’m sure this report has been labeled as “misinformation” or “disinformation” by the powers that be, and challenged by “fact checkers” as well.
‘“They couldn’t ever lie about the existence of plastic waste,’ said Allen. ‘But they created a lie about how we could solve it, and that was recycling.’”
“Tracy asked, ‘If plastic recycling is technically difficult, if it doesn’t make a whole lot of economic sense, why has the plastics industry pushed it?’”
“The plastics industry understands that selling recycling sells plastic, and they’ll say pretty much whatever they need to say to continue doing that,’ Allen replied. ‘That’s how they make money.’”
And we know everything is all about the money. Everything.
“Plastic is made from oil and gas, and comes in thousands of varieties, most of which cannot be recycled together. But in the 1980s, when some municipalities moved to ban plastic products, the industry began promoting the idea of recycling as a solution.”
“Allen showed us documents and meeting notes they obtained from public archives, and from a former staff member of the American Plastics Council. ‘What we see in here is a widespread knowledge that plastics recycling was not working,’ he said.”
“At a trade conference in Florida in 1989, an industry leader told attendees, ‘Recycling cannot go on indefinitely, and does not solve the solid waste problem.’”
“In 1994 an Exxon executive told the staff of the plastics council that when it comes to recycling, ‘We are committed to the activities but not committed to the results.’”
“Allen said, ‘They always kind of viewed recycling not as a real technical problem that they needed to solve but as a public relations problem.’”
“The industry just launched a new ad campaign, called ‘Recycling is real,’ and says it’s investing in what it calls advanced recycling technology.”
“The American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, responded to ‘CBS Sunday Morning’ in a statement, calling the Center for Climate Integrity’s report ‘flawed’ and ‘outdated,’ and says ‘plastic makers are working hard to change the way that plastics are made and recycled.’”
I’m sure they’re working oh so hard at having us believe they are working oh so hard.
“Jan Dell doesn’t believe plastic will ever be truly recyclable: ‘It’s the same process they were trying 30 years ago, and my response to that is, it’s science fiction,’ she said.”
“Plastic production is set to triple by 2050, and with so much plastic waste piling up on land and sea, more than 170 countries are working on a United Nations treaty to end plastic pollution.”
Would you say they are “working hard” on this as well?”
“In a letter to President Biden about the negotiations, the plastics industry says it opposes any bans on plastic production, but supports more recycling.”
“To which Dell says, ‘The only thing the plastics industry has actually recycled is their lies over and over again.’”
Well said.
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please share them, and please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
Excuse me for being a little introspective today, but I recently heard this song again by Supertramp, and it made me think.
Here are the words to the song. What do you think?
“When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful
A miracle, oh, it was beautiful, magical
And all the birds in the trees, well they’d be singing so happily
Oh, joyfully, oh, playfully watching me
But then they sent me away to teach me how to be sensible
Logical, oh, responsible, practical
Then they showed me a world where I could be so dependable
Oh, clinical, oh, intellectual, cynical
There are times when all the world’s asleep
The questions run too deep
For such a simple man
Won’t you please, please tell me what we’ve learned?
I know it sounds absurd
Please tell me who I am
I said, now, watch what you say, they’ll be calling you a radical
A liberal, oh, fanatical, criminal
Oh, won’t you sign up your name? We’d like to feel you’re acceptable
Respectable, oh, presentable, a vegetable
But at night, when all the world’s asleep
The questions run so deep
For such a simple man…”
Life is really fairly simple.
But there are those that love to complicate things for their own benefit. “Those” being the government, elected and unelected, and “the haves.” These people are just interested in protecting their positions, power, and wealth.
Once we get to a certain age, we don’t have the luxury of being so care free anymore. We have responsibilities, and we are just trying to survive, and give ourselves and our families the best lives we can.
Most of us just want to feel safe and comfortable, but it seems that is too much to ask for now. “They” just can’t help themselves from demanding more, and more, until they ruin it for everyone, including themselves.
And, please be aware about the line that says “they’ll be calling you a liberal,” that conservatives are really the new “liberals,” while the democrats are all about being “the man” now.
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please share them, and please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
Before I get started, I want to give my wife credit for this title. Nice one, Honey.
While we waited for “president” Biden to come out for his unscheduled press conference last Thursday night, my wife and I speculated what our fearless leader was going to say, given that earlier in the day the special counsel released their findings about their look into Biden’s handling of classified documents as a Senator, a vice president, a private citizen, and finally as president.
Would Biden say he had decided not to run for re-election?
Would Biden say he has decided to step down?
Glenn Thrush for The New York Times reported, “While Mr. Hur decided not to prosecute Mr. Biden, 81, [Did anyone ever actually think he would be prosecuted?] some of the reasoning he cited for his decision immediately created a new political crisis for the White House. In recounting his interviews with the president, Mr. Hur portrayed him as unable to remember key dates of his time in the Obama White House, or even precisely when his son Beau had died.”
“‘Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview with him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,’ Mr. Hur wrote.”
Is that really a thing? This is how they decide to prosecute people, or not, who have committed a crime(s)?
“The inquiry found that the president had willfully retained material after finishing his term as vice president and had shared sensitive information with a ghostwriter.”
So, Biden and his crew could argue against Mr. Hur’s findings, but then wouldn’t they be arguing against the reason Mr. Hur chose not to prosecute Clueless Joe?
Can they have it both ways?
Sorry. Stupid question.
It is a bit of a conundrum, but not for this bunch.
Instead of coming out in his interview and calmly and coolly thanking the special prosecutor for choosing to not prosecute him, while begging to differ on his cognitive assertions of him, he came out and attacked the special prosecutor and anyone else who questions his mental acuity, while then proceeding to confuse the President of Egypt with the President of Mexico.
I have to tell you, after watching Tucker Carlson’s interview of Vladimir Putin, and watching him talk off the script for over two hours, and seeing what an intelligent and sharp man he is, Mr. Putin, along with along with all of the other leaders and people around the world, must be having a good laugh at “president” Biden, America, and her people. You and I.
Thanks again “president” Biden.
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please share them, and please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
The “insurrection” word gets thrown around ALL the time by democrats, but the truth is NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH INSURRECTION, REGARDING THE EVENTS OF JANUARY 6TH.
Let me say that again.
NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH INSURRECTION, REGARDING THE EVENTS OF JANUARY 6TH.
Although hundreds of Americans have been charged with various other crimes, regarding the events of January 6th, NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH INSURRECTION REGARDING THE EVENTS OF JANUARY 6TH.
Let me say that again.
NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH INSURRECTION, REGARDING THE EVENTS OF JANUARY 6TH.
You may wonder how that could possibly be, and the answer is probably because it, in reality, was not an “insurrection,” at least by the protesters and rioters that have been targeted by The Department of inJustice.
Kaylee McGhee White, for The Washington Examiner writes, “Reminder: Not one person involved in Jan. 6 riot has been charged with ‘insurrection.’”
“For all the Democrats’ talk of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot being an ‘insurrection,’ it’s important to remember that not one person involved in the riot has been charged with that crime.”
“My colleague Jerry Dunleavy writes, ‘One year after the Capitol riot, no one has been charged with sedition or insurrection, despite initial Justice Department claims that such charges were likely and former President Donald Trump being impeached for allegedly inciting an insurrection.’”
“Surely, if the rioters’ actions were as seditious and Trump’s foolishness [their words, not mine] was as dangerous as Democrats have claimed, we’d be seeing criminal charges that reflect the seriousness of those alleged crimes. But that hasn’t happened.”
“According to the Justice Department, more than 225 defendants had been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement officers; at least 275 defendants have been charged with obstructing a congressional proceeding; and about 40 defendants have been charged with some sort of conspiracy charge.”
“But, again, no one has been charged with sedition or insurrection.”
Let me say that again.
NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH INSURRECTION, REGARDING THE EVENTS OF JANUARY 6TH.
“Perhaps that’s why the vast majority of voters on both the Left and the Right don’t agree with Democrats’ characterization of the Capitol riot as an insurrection. A CBS News poll released this week found that 70% of the people who voted for President Joe Biden and 84% of the people who voted for Trump considered the Capitol riot to be a ‘protest that went too far.’”
Now we see multiple states attempting to keep President Trump off of this November’s ballot because he, according to their belief, “incited an insurrection” on January 6th.
The same January 6th where NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH INSURRECTION REGARDING THE EVENTS OF JANUARY 6TH, INCLUDING PRESIDENT TRUMP.
In truth, President Trump offered to deploy 10,000 National Guard troops to the Capitol that day, but his offer was rejected by Pelosi, who as the Speaker of the House at the time, was in charge of Capitol security.
Now why would she do that?
The idea has been floated she denied troops to help with security because “it would not have been a good look.”
But the Capitol surrounded by fences and razor wire and troops after the fact was a good look?
In reality, I believe she did not want the troops there because they would have actually kept the protestors in line, which was contrary to what Pelosi, and her counterparts, the FBI, desired.
It has been well documented that FBI operatives incited the protestors to march on and enter the Capitol building, and even assisted them with their entry.
All so Pelosi and the democrats could use this event to further their never ending parade of witch hunts against President Trump, and further promote their narrative of the evil MAGA contingency.
And, why was Nancy Pelosi, who was responsible for Capitol security, never brought before the January 6th Committee to testify?
I think we all know the answer to that question.
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please share them, and please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
The democrats are demonstrating, again, that they have no shame, no level they won’t stoop to, and no lie they aren’t willing to tell to cover their tracks, or to promote their disingenuous positions and narratives.
The most recent examples are the false narratives surrounding this latest “border security” bill, and border security in general.
We are hearing claims from “President” Biden that he needs this latest border bill, or something like it, to help him secure the border.
Lie.
In truth, the border was very secure when he assumed office in 2021, and it was his executive actions on day one of his administration that opened the illegal immigrant floodgates. These actions could just as easily be reversed without any help from congress.
At a recent campaign event in South Carolina, Biden said Democrats and Republicans are “making real progress” on a bill that would include new border security measures.
“It would also give me, as president, the emergency authority to shut down the border until it can get back under control,” Biden said at South Carolina’s “First in the Nation” dinner. “If that bill were the law today, I’d shut down the border right now and fix it quickly.”
Lies, lies, and more lies.
The truth is, expecting the creator of the problem to fix the problem they created is insanity.
In addition, the president, any president, already has the emergency authority to close down the border, if they really want to.
The democrats have now actually resorted to blaming former President Trump for our border woes, and the complicit mainstream media is more than happy to allow them to perpetrate these lies without challenging anything they claim.
Hopefully people will more and more begin to believe their own lying eyes, and hold the democrats accountable for their anti-American policies.
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please share them, and please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
Treasonous “President” Joe Biden has given the state of Texas until today (Friday, 1/26/2024) to back down and allow the federal border guard access to the border there at Shelby Park, in Eagle Pass, Texas.
Or what, Traitorous Joe?
And according to Blake Hanson, for Fox News 4, “Texas leaders refuse to give feds access to Shelby Park amid border standoff.”
I am proposing that Shelby Park, there in Eagle Pass, Texas, be referred to as “The New Alamo,” “The Alamo 2,” “The Alamo Part 2”, or perhaps “The Alamo 2024.”
“Top Texas officials say they will not comply with a deadline to allow federal border agents access to a park along the Rio Grande.”
“The tensions between the state and federal government have led to some calls for the president to take control of the Texas National Guard.”
“The Federal government demanded its border agents get access to a park that is a high crossing area by Friday (today).
“It’s a small area on a big border but a symbol of a dispute between the state and feds that’s ramping up.”
“The state of Texas is adding more razor wire along the border even after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling paved the way for the feds to take it down.”
“Gov. Greg Abbott shared on Thursday why he thinks there’s constitutional backing for the state to do what it needs.”
‘“It was the states that created the United States,’ he said in a FOX News interview. ‘And when the states voted to create the United States and have a constitution, included in that agreement was the compact that the federal government would take care of the states.’”
Of course, “dictator wanna be” Joe never saw a federal law or constitutional law he felt obliged to follow.
But, former President Trump is the one constantly referred to as a threat to “democracy.”
The democrats and Clueless Joe just have no shame.
“The high court threw out a lower court decision, meaning federal agents can resume cutting razor wire. But Gov. Greg Abbott says the state will keep adding more wire, saying Texas’ constitutional right to defend itself outweighs federal law.”
‘“Regardless of what federal statute may exist, the supremacy clause means that the constitution itself is the supreme law of the land,’ Abbott said. ‘The constitution itself provides Texas with a right of self-defense, in this case, because the United States has abandoned its responsibility to defend Texas.’”
And, at this point, twenty-four other governors agree with Governor Abbott, and have joined Texas in their assertions against the federal government and Joe “Santa Ana” Biden.
(Antonio López de Santa Anna was the Mexican President who led the attack(s) against The Alamo, during the Texas Revolution in 1836.)
Stand by. This could get very interesting.
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please share them, and please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
Let me start out by saying we don’t need an “official” impeachment inquiry.
And we don’t need all of these hearings and investigations into Joe Biden’s obvious corruptness.
We don’t need to tie this check to that account, or that money to this person.
We just really need to stop playing these legislative games, which it seems, only republicans feel obligated to observe.
All we have to do is bring attention to the unquestionable “high crimes and misdemeanors” conducted by Joseph R. Biden and his cast of treasonists, regarding the colossal mess he has created on our southern border, and go from there.
But, what exactly are “high crimes and misdemeanors?”
According to Madeleine Carlisle, for Time Magazine, reporting regarding the impending impeachment of then President Donald Trump at the time, “The House of Representatives voted in favor of two articles of impeachment — accusations of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress’s investigation into his relationship with Ukraine — that Democrats argue fall under the umbrella of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’”
“According to the U.S. Constitution, a President can be impeached for committing ‘Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ Treason and bribery are relatively clear, but what exactly are ‘high crimes and misdemeanors?’ The answer, it turns out, is complicated, and has been evolving for hundreds of years.”
“The phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ appears in Article II section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.”
“There are currently two major legal disputes over the definition of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ The first is whether or not something in that category actually has to be a crime. Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri School of Law and the author of High Crimes & Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump, tells TIME he believes it doesn’t. ‘The defenders of the impeached officer always argue, always, that a crime is required,’ he says. ‘And every time that misconception has to be knocked down again.’”
“He offers this example: ‘Let’s say the President were to wake up tomorrow morning and says, “All this impeachment stuff is kind of getting on my nerves. I think I’m going to go to Barbados for six months. Don’t call me, I’ll call you,” and just cuts off all contact and refuses to do his duty,’ Bowman theorizes. ‘That’s not a crime. It’s not violating a law. But could we impeach him? Of course we could — otherwise what’s the remedy? We have a country without a President.’”
“What’s the Constitutional history of the term?”
“The concept of impeachment was used by the British Parliament as early as 1376, as a legislative safeguard against overreach by the aristocracy, and the terms in question were part of the process early on.”
‘“In England a lot of the impeachment cases had relied on this language of “high crimes and misdemeanors” from the 1640s onward,’ Bernadette Meyler, a law professor at Stanford Law School, explains.”
“But the phrase didn’t have a set definition in British practice; it was used to describe whatever thing the person was being impeached for, according to Bowman. There were several things for which people were impeached during this era: ordinary crimes, treason, corruption, abuse of power, ordinary incompetence and misbehavior in relation to foreign policy.”
“When the framers of the U.S. Constitution realized they needed a way to remove executive officials who abused the nature of their positions, they decided to add a definition for an impeachable offense. Though many suggestions were made at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, by the end of the summer they’d winnowed it down to two examples: treason and bribery.”
“But George Mason of Virginia took issue with limiting it to the two definitions, arguing they were too narrow. At the same time the Constitution was being drafted, newspapers were covering the impeachment of a statesman named Warren Hastings for misconduct during his time the Governor General of India. Mason pointed out that under their current definition, Hasting wouldn’t be impeachable. Mason suggest they broaden the definition to include ‘maladministration,’ meaning mismanagement or ineffective governance. James Madison argued back that the word would be too broad, and make it so the President would be serving at the ‘pleasure of the Senate.’ He worried Senators could remove the President if they disliked a policy move.”
“George Mason then proposed including the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ instead, and that’s the term they settled on.”
“To understand what the framers thought ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ meant, Harvard Law professor Jennifer Taub points to Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper No. 65, in which he explains the impeachment process. ‘The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust,’ Hamilton wrote in 1788.”
Soooo, a “high crime” is just a term deemed to recognize something negative a person of power is capable of doing, which the typical person isn’t even in the position to do, or even capable of doing.
It’s a “high crime.”
It’s a special kind of crime.
So, again, we don’t need an “official” impeachment inquiry.
And we don’t need all of these hearings and investigations into Joe Biden’s obvious corruptness.
We don’t need to tie this check to that account, or that money to this person.
We just really need to stop playing these legislative games, which it seems, only republicans feel obligated to observe.
All we have to do is bring attention to the unquestionable “high crimes and misdemeanors” conducted by Joseph R. Biden and his cast of treasonists, and go from there.
This is exactly what Colorado Representative, Lauren Boebert, did on 06/13/2023, when she introduced House Resolution 503, to impeach Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
The latest action by the House, regarding this resolution, was to refer it to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
Submitted articles of impeachment:
ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President of the United States “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. In his conduct as President of the United States—and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed—Joseph R. Biden, Jr., has abused the powers of the office of the President of the United States, in that:
Using the powers of his high office, President Biden has knowingly presided over an executive branch that has continuously, overtly, and consistently violated Federal immigration law by pursuing an aggressive, open-borders agenda by purposefully and knowingly releasing more than 2,000,000 illegal aliens into the interior of the United States without the intention or ability to ensure that they appear in immigration court to face asylum or deportation proceedings.
President Biden has intentionally facilitated a complete and total invasion at the southern border. President Biden ended the Migrant Protection Protocols to require aliens seeking asylum to remain in Mexico while being processed by the Department of Homeland Security. President Biden has closed Department of Homeland Security detention facilities and refused to cooperate with State and local law enforcement officials in securing the border. He has allowed illegal aliens to enter the United States as asylum seekers despite knowing they did not qualify for asylum. President Biden has pursued this open-border agenda purposefully and willfully, circumventing every safeguard, check, and balance required by law, resulting in mass illegal immigration into the United States, to the detriment of the American people.
President Biden, with such conduct, has demonstrated a failure to uphold Federal immigration law, violating his oath to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with the rule of law and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, President Biden, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
ARTICLE II: DERELICTION OF DUTY
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President of the United States “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. In his conduct as President of the United States—and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed—Joseph R. Biden, Jr., has neglected the constitutional duty of the office of the President of the United States, in that:
Neglecting the powers of his high office, President Biden has abandoned his duties to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed and upheld, by presiding over an executive branch that has continually, overtly, and consistently refused to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws and secure the southern border. President Biden has endangered the security of the United States and the health and safety of the American people. President Biden has caused a national security crisis and is endangering the lives of the American people.
President Biden has presided over the largest influx of illegal immigrants in American history, and as evidence of his dereliction, the deportation cases pursued by his administration are at historic lows. President Biden’s negligence of duty has resulted in the surrender of operational control of the border to the complete and total control of foreign, criminal cartels—putting the lives of American citizens in jeopardy. On President Biden’s watch, illegal aliens have been processed and released into the interior of the country under a mass system of parole, contrary to the clear terms of Federal immigration law. Utilizing the “CBP ONE” program, the executive branch will release nearly 40,000 illegal aliens per month into the United States. He has failed to uphold the mandatory detention and deportation provisions of immigration laws, resulting in the mass entry of inadmissible aliens and the continued presence of deportable aliens. Through this complete and total dereliction of duty and extreme absence in oversight of his own administration’s policies, President Biden has allowed more than 1,500,000 illegal immigrants to invade the southern border. On Joe Biden’s watch, illicit fentanyl has killed more than 100,000 American citizens. In fiscal year 2023, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol seized more than 9,000 pounds of fentanyl at the southern border.
In his failure to uphold the rule of law, President Biden has demonstrated that he will neglect his duty to execute the office to which he has been entrusted, violating his oath to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of the United States be faithfully executed.
Wherefore, President Biden, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
I believe that about sums it up.
If these aren’t the clearest, and most valid, reasons to impeach Joseph Biden, I really don’t know what would be.
Can someone please explain to me what the House Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement is doing with this referral?
Can someone please explain to me what our Speaker of the House is doing with this proposal?
Does anyone in Washington D.C. give a damn about our country anymore, save a handful of patriotic conservative House representatives?!
We don’t have time for political games anymore.
Who can reasonably argue against Biden’s “high crimes,” as laid out by Representative Boebert?
IMPEACH JOE BIDEN NOW!
IMPEACH JOE BIDEN NOW!!
IMPEACH JOE BIDEN NOW!!!
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please share them, and please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
Isn’t that an odd way for AARP to begin an ad for itself?
So, they acknowledge many seniors don’t agree with their liberal stance on many social issues, but they should just overlook that for the sake of their social security.
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”
Just keep shoveling money at us and our liberal “friends,” and we’ll take care of the rest.
In case you’re not familiar with them, AARP was formerly the American Association of Retired Persons, and is an interest group in the United States focusing on issues affecting those over the age of fifty. The organization, which is headquartered in Washington, D.C., said it had more than 38 million members as of 2018.
“Formerly?”
So, what exactly does it stand for now?
According to Bill McAllister, for The Washington Post, “AARP ALTERS NAME TO REFLECT REALITY.”
Ha! If they wanted to reflect reality they would have renamed themselves DEMSCAM!
“One of Washington’s most influential interest groups is changing its name.”
“The American Association of Retired Persons said yesterday it has decided it will be known by its acronym, AARP. When pronounced, the name rhymes with harp.”
That’s dumb.
“The reason for the change: Too many of the organization’s 38+ million members are still working, said spokeswoman Lisa Davis. The organization, which has been a major lobbying force on issues affecting senior citizens such as Social Security and Medicare, allows individuals as young as 50 to join its ranks.”
The more, the merrier, not to mention, the more, the more money.
It’s always about the money.
And with the democrats, it’s always about discrimination, as well. So, no one under 50 years of age is “allowed to join?”
How does that work?
It doesn’t even make sense.
Isn’t that age discrimination?
So, no one under 50 is interested in “protecting” social security and Medicare?
Just sayin’.
According to the website “Ballotpedia,” “AARP is tax exempt, and defines itself as follows:”
“AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, with a membership of more than 37 million, that helps people turn their goals and dreams into real possibilities, strengthens communities and fights for the issues that matter most to families such as healthcare, employment security and retirement planning. We advocate for consumers in the marketplace by selecting products and services of high quality and value to carry the AARP name as well as help our members obtain discounts on a wide range of products, travel, and services.”
Who could ask for more?!
Please note: Any group that has tens of millions of dollars at its disposal, as well as the ability to influence political issues with millions of people, and at the same time claims to be nonpartisan, is lying.
And, “tax exempt?” Please.
Did you ever noticed how most organizations which promote a liberal point of view have gained tax exempt status?
Anyway, I digress.
“In an editorial column in the Los Angeles Times, critic Dale Van Atta says. ‘AARP does unauthorized lobbying for its membership, and lobbies against the best interests of its membership. Van Atta says that by lobbying for the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, AARP leaders betrayed the membership.’”
So, “One of Washington’s most influential interest groups” “betrayed the membership.”
Well, that’s only to be expected from just another disingenuous liberal organization.
What started out as a valuable proponent for senior citizens and retirees, has now been fully bastardized into a tool for the democrat party.
“BusinessWeek magazine says that in the past questions have arisen about whether AARP’s commercial interests may conflict with those of its membership, and characterizes many of the funds and insurance policies that AARP markets as providing considerably less benefit than seniors could get on their own.”
Like I said, it’s all about the money, because the money buys them political influence.
Stephen Miller, for The Washington Post writes, “Here’s why I’ll never ever join the AARP.”
“Today I got another letter from AARP. The letters have been coming pretty much every week for 25 years [I’m sure we can all relate!]. But in the past two months they’ve changed. AARP used to ask me to join. Now the letters from the lobbying group for older Americans say that I have joined but I haven’t paid my bill.”
I can see many of our older senior citizens falling for this, which is exactly how it was intended, I’m sure.
DEMSCAM.
“The latest one has on the envelope in big red letters: ‘Immediate Attention Requested.’ It says, ‘Thank you for joining AARP.’ But two sentences later it adds: ‘If you’ll promptly return the enclosed invoice with your payment, we will reinstate your membership and you’ll once again be a member in good standing.’”
“So am I a new member or a lapsed member? Neither. I have never joined AARP. And never will.”
“AARP clearly hopes that one day I will come to my senses and realize that joining the group is a smart move. Why don’t I join? AARP has oodles of benefits, and it only costs 16 bucks for a year’s membership. You can save, the letter says, on prescriptions and health-care products through AARP’s convenient pharmacy service; you can save on hotels, motels, tours and cruises. You can save on groceries, restaurants, flowers, electronics, clothing, vision and hearing care, and more. AARP even has a Benefits Handbook.”
“But I don’t join because there’s one ‘benefit’ AARP offers that I dislike. ‘You benefit from AARP’s leadership in Washington as AARP fights to protect Social Security, Medicare and employment rights.’ Protect? AARP doesn’t protect Social Security and Medicare. It prevents any serious discussion of meaningfully reforming these programs, which are in great danger of becoming insolvent.”
AARP = DEMSCAM.
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please share them, and please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
My short, but sweet, answer would be NO…, and here’s why.
As I’m writing this, our country’s national debt is approaching $34 TRILLION!
That’s $34,000,000,000,000.00!
That equates to every man, woman, and child in America being on the hook for over $100,000.00.
Every “taxpayer” would have to pay close to $260,000.00 tomorrow to erase our national debt.
Do the 20 million, or so, illegal immigrants we have now really want to become citizens and assume this debt with the rest of us? Something tells me this isn’t really a concern of theirs. Just sayin’.
Anyway…
We’re over $34 TRILLION in debt, but we’re still giving money away to other countries?!
Just to put this into some kind of perspective, this would be like you or I having like ten mortgages on our house, and like 20 charge cards maxed out at $25k each, and then taking out an eleventh mortgage just to hand out money to people in our neighborhood. To some that don’t even like us, and to some that actually hate us. But they are ALL laughing at us all the way to the bank.
Pretty disgusting, right?
As disgusting as it is, I think we are at the point where we have to accept that our government is not going to stop spending money it really doesn’t have, but can we at least agree that spending this fictional “monopoly” money be limited to being spent on us?
I mean, it’s not like we have a lack of actual American citizens who could use a little help.
It’s not like all of our roads are free of potholes.
It’s not like all of our public schools are state of the art.
It’s not like we don’t have any homeless people.
It’s not like all of our veterans are being properly cared for.
It’s not like heath care and medications are affordable for everyone.
It’s not like most of us are just living paycheck to paycheck.
And the list could go on and on.
But yet, we are expected to subsidize foreign countries all over the world to make their lives better?
This is why I’m proposing a law be passed that would prohibit our government from giving away any of OUR money to foreign countries as long as we are running a national debt.
This seems completely fair, doesn’t it?
This seems to make complete common sense, doesn’t it?
We started this practice of handing out money to the rest of the world when we were a rich country, with basically no debt.
Well, we are sadly not that rich country anymore.
We are being run by fools, who deal in fool’s gold, while the rest of us poor slobs are left holding the bag.
It’s way past time that we should hold all of these crooks in Washington accountable.
Way past time.
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please share them, and please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
The correct updated answer would be at least 42 times since Oct. 17, 2023!
42 times!!!
That comes out to between one or two attacks per day!
And what have we done about it?
I heard we finally blew up a few empty warehouses in Syria.
Ooooh! I’m sure Iran and their friends got that message.
And, that message would be that Illegitimate Joe and his friends are holding up their end of the bargain, and are continuing with their policy of Iranian appeasement, at the expense of any of our poor troops that may be in the Middle East.
Pathetic.
Disgraceful.
Shameful.
Treasonous.
According to Coutney Kube, for NBC News, “At least 45 U.S. service members may have been injured in Iran-linked attacks.”
“The number of injured, which includes two dozen service members who may have traumatic brain injuries, is more than twice as many as the Pentagon previously disclosed.”
Huh? That’s odd.
“The military is monitoring approximately two dozen service members who may have suffered traumatic brain injuries (TBI) during the attacks, which are believed to have been carried out by groups with links to Iran, according to U.S. defense officials.”
As long as it’s only traumatic brain injuries!
Glad to hear you’re “monitoring” them, though.
“The Defense Department has previously said 21 service members received minor injuries in attacks on U.S. forces at al-Tanf in southern Syria and on al-Asad air base in western Iraq late last month.”
“Three members of Congress who are all military veterans sent a letter Monday asking Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin how the Pentagon is protecting service members stationed at forward operating bases from traumatic brain injury.”
‘“The Department must proactively work to reduce the risk to service members both to protect our men and women in uniform and to preserve the capability and readiness of forward operating bases,’ Reps. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz.; Morgan Luttrell, R-Texas; and Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, wrote.”
How about asking “the president” and The Department of Defense how may attacks it now takes before we respond with an appropriate response?
I mean, it seems like once used to be enough.
Just sayin’.
“Since Oct. 17, there have been at least 38 [this has now been updated to 42] separate attacks on bases housing U.S. troops in Syria and Iraq, mainly by one-way drones, mortars or rockets. The two attacks that caused the injuries were both on Oct. 18.”
“A U.S. contractor died that day when he suffered a heart attack sheltering in place at al-Asad, the Pentagon said. The injuries so far include at least 32 people at al-Tanf, 13 at al-Asad and one in Erbil in northern Iraq, according to Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder.”
“A separate attack on Oct. 25 had the potential to be catastrophic for the U.S. military, two U.S. defense officials said. An explosives-filled drone hit the roof of a building housing U.S. troops on a base in Erbil. The drone did not explode. If it had, dozens of troops inside could have been injured or killed, the officials said.”
So, if this would have happened, we would have responded by blowing up ten empty buildings? Twenty?
I think Iran will trade empty warehouses for injured or killed U.S troops all day long.
“The U.S. blames the recent attacks on Iranian-backed militia groups. While they have not said Iran is directing the attacks, U.S. officials say Iran is responsible for funding, arming, equipping and training the groups.”
Oh, okay then.
‘“What we want is for Iran to take very specific action to direct its militias and proxies to stand down,’ a senior U.S. defense official said after the strikes last month.”
Or what?
Or you’ll send them a nasty letter?
Have you ever heard, “You can’t always get what you want…?”
I’m sorry, but our Department of Defense has become a joke under the watchful eye of Illegitimate Joe and his bumbling democrat friends and advisors.
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please share them, and please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
Mr. Erickson Rules! 