He’s in a “squad,” she’s in a “squad,” we’re in a “squad,” wouldn’t you like to be in a “squad” too?!

We’ve been hearing a lot lately about “The Squad,” but what exactly is its deal and what’s going on with it?

squad 7

As usual, MrEricksonRules is here to clear things up and give you an unadulterated view of the situation.

By definition…, a “squad” is a small group of people trained to work together as a unit.

Most “squads” have a name, like a firing squad, a death squad, a cheerleading squad, a military squad, a police squad, a suicide squad, a practice squad, the “Geek Squad,” a rifle squad, the “Mod squad,” a bomb squad, a rescue squad, for example.

squad 9

squad 8

squad 6

squad 3

squad 5

squad 4

Now we have four of our freshmen congress women who have deemed themselves “THE SQUAD.”

That alone is pretty bold. It’s actually pretty ignorant and self-aggrandizing for them to believe they are worthy to be members of “THE SQUAD.”

“The Squad,” according to its own members, supposedly form a unified front to push for progressive changes such as a socialistic form of government, the Green New Deal, Medicare-for-all (including illegal immigrants) and open borders, while opposing support for Israel, Christianity, and anything that could be construed as traditionally “American” or patriotic.

The members of “The Squad” are Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

squad 1

Okay…, so now we know what “The Squad” is.

Now what’s all of the commotion about “The Squad” as of late?

Well, it started when they basically accused Nancy Pelosi of discriminating against them and because they were people of color.  By definition, that’s accusing her of being a racist, isn’t it?

Pelosi then got into a twitter battle with them…, and not to be outdone, President Trump had to enter the fray.

He has since been accused of being a racist…, again, and a sexist…, again.

Rather than interpreting what The President said, and telling you what to think about it, like “The Squad” and the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media,” along with the rest of “the swamp…,” we’re going to just look at what The President tweeted, so you can decide for yourself.

First he tweeted:

“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run.”

Then he tweeted:

“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!”

He then responded to reporters at the White House by saying that, “If somebody has a problem with our country, if somebody doesn’t want to be in our country, they should leave.”

“When will the Radical Left Congresswomen apologize to our Country, the people of Israel and even to the Office of the President, for the foul language they have used, and the terrible things they have said?” The President added.

“They are anti-Israel, pro Al-Qaeda, and comment on the 9/11 attack, ‘some people did something.’ Radical Left Democrats want Open Borders, which means drugs, crime, human trafficking, and much more.”

“Detention facilities are not Concentration Camps! America has never been stronger than it is now – rebuilt Military, highest Stock Market EVER, lowest unemployment and more people working than ever before. Keep America Great!”

“We will never be a Socialist or Communist Country. IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY HERE, YOU CAN LEAVE! It is your choice, and your choice alone. This is about love for America. Certain people HATE our Country….”

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

So there you have the actual tweets from The President.

Can you see why they’re blasting him for being a racist?

Can you see why they’re blasting him for being a sexist?

Hmmm, I really don’t see it either.

I can see where he’s challenging their politics and their ideas, but I don’t see racism or sexism there.

I just see four anti-American liberal democrats who can’t defend their radical narrative, so they just lazily accuse The President as being racist and sexist in order to deflect the attention away from themselves, while attempting to devalue his remarks.

If you want to, you can “see” racist and sexist intonations in “Mary had a Little Lamb,” “Baa Baa, Black Sheep,” and what about “The House that Jack Built?”

He didn’t build that!

Sorry…, I couldn’t resist.

Rebecca Morin, of USA TODAY, reported that, “On Monday afternoon, the lawmakers responded to Trump’s comments in a press conference on Capitol Hill.  Pressley said the president’s recent comments were just a ‘disruptive distraction’ from a ‘callous, chaotic and corrupt’ administration.”

“Omar accused Trump of pursuing a ‘white nationalist’ agenda.”

Excuse me, but isn’t that a racist remark?  Just sayin’.

“While the congresswomen were speaking, Trump continued to tweet about them, ‘The Dems were trying to distance themselves from the four “progressives,” [The Squad], but now they are forced to embrace them,’ The President wrote. ‘That means they are endorsing Socialism, hate of Israel and the USA! Not good for the Democrats!’”

‘“THIS is what racism looks like,’ Pressley tweeted.  “WE are what democracy looks like. And we’re not going anywhere. Except back to DC to fight for the families you marginalize and vilify every day.’”

Isn’t this a racist calling out President Trump for racism?

Why does everything always have to come down to what someone “looks” like instead of what they stand for?

“Omar, who has been criticized by Republicans several times due to controversial comments she made about Israel, also criticized Trump’s online postings and Trump himself.  ‘Mr. President, As Members of Congress, the only country we swear an oath to is the United States,’ she tweeted Sunday. ‘Which is why we are fighting to protect it from the worst, most corrupt and inept president we have ever seen.’”

‘“Want a response to a lawless & complete failure of a President?’ Tlaib tweeted. ‘He is the crisis. His dangerous ideology is the crisis. He needs to be impeached.’”

Yes…, and in your oath you swear to uphold the laws of our country…, the laws that you are in charge of establishing.  Yet you encourage other politicians and illegal immigrants to ignore and break our laws.

“Ocasio-Cortez, who is a self-described Democratic Socialist, tweeted a thread responding to the president, saying that Trump is ‘angry because you can’t conceive of an America that includes us.’”

It’s not YOU Ms. Ocasio-Cortez…, it’s your dangerous socialist ideas that worry him.

‘“You rely on a frightened America for your plunder,’ she tweeted. ‘You won’t accept a nation that sees healthcare as a right or education as a #1 priority, especially where we’re the ones fighting for it. Yet here we are.’”

What?  AOC’s level of confusion is truly impressive.

It is the democrats who have traditionally employed “scare tactics” with seniors, women, minorities and the underprivileged in general.

Now…, adding insult to injury…, Chad Pergram and Frank Miles of Fox News report that, “House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson, D-Miss., was seeking extra protection for members of Congress [from Senate Sergeant at Arms, Michael Stenger] on Monday after President Trump’s tweets and remarks about the ‘progressive squad.’”

“In the letter for House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving and Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger, Thompson argued that the Capitol Police Board should meet to ‘analyze the current threat environment and set thresholds for enhanced safety of Members.’”

Well isn’t that special!

Yes…, by all means…, let’s all be concerned about “enhanced security” for our “open borders” congress people who have no concern about the security of their American citizen constituents, when it comes to letting anyone and everyone into our country, and then fighting to keep illegal immigrant criminals in our country by opposing federal law officers when they try and do their jobs to protect American citizens.

Only in America.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

How far “left” is too far “left” for “the left?”

The answer to this question appears to be, “We have not yet begun to propose crazy liberal policies!”

Yes…, stay posted my friends.

It seems that every new day brings yet another wacky idea from the collection of democrat presidential candidates, regarding a new program for them to hand out our money, to buy more votes, and to grow more government, while essentially trying to destroy America, as we know her, along the way.

libs 1

Our lefty politicians don’t even really understand how far “left” they are!

I believe they actually think they represent a “typical American.”

In the places they represent (remember the small areas of blue on the voting map of America) that may be true.  There, their ideas are accepted, lauded and encouraged, while everywhere else we are left shaking our heads and wondering, “Who are these people and what country do they live in?”

libs 11

libs 2

Even Black Entertainment Television (BET) founder, Robert Johnson, told CNBC that “The democratic party has “moved too far to the left” and has “become too liberal to defeat President Trump.”

Robert Johnson is the country’s first African-American billionaire, according to Forbes Business Magazine.

Hmmm.  The big liberal propaganda machine is going to have to be careful with this one, although I’m sure he’ll be labeled as an “Uncle Tom” before too long if he doesn’t come around to “the left’s” way of thinking and their narrative of choice.

libs 9

Brian Flood of Fox News reported that, ‘“I think at the end of the day, if a Democrat is going to beat Trump, then that person, he or she, will have to move to the center and you can’t wait too long to do that,’ Johnson said. ‘The message of some of the programs that Democrats are pushing are not resonating with the majority of the American people.’”

The problem is that liberals don’t even consider the American people, who support President Trump, people!

libs 8

“Johnson, a long time democrat, said the current far-left state of the Democratic Party will work well in the primaries but won’t help in a general election, especially since he feels Trump has his base locked up. The BET founder, who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016, even praised some of Trump’s recent accomplishments.”

‘“I think the economy is doing great, and it’s particularly reaching populations that heretofore had very bad problems in terms of jobs and employments and the opportunities that come with employment,’ Johnson said. ‘African-American unemployment is at its lowest level…  I give the president a lot of credit for moving the economy in a positive direction that’s benefiting a large amount of Americans.’”

But yet, in the 2020 presidential election, 85%-90% of African-Americans will continue to vote for the democrat candidate.

libs 4

The spell the democrats have over African-Americans is a strong one, but more and more are coming to their senses and seeing things as they really are, like Mr. Johnson here.

“Johnson said he gives Trump an ‘A+’ for the economy and added that the divisive politics [of democrats] are ‘not helping America.’”

Ouch!  That really stings for our current collection of socialist democrat presidential candidates.

libs 6

But don’t worry…, this won’t phase them much.  They’ll just reload their fake reality, continue to propose fake solutions to real problems, and stupid solutions to fake problems.

WINNING!

libs 8

libs 7

libs 3

libs 5

libs 10

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

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

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑