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

So, what the heck is this “Green New Deal” anyway?

Well, first of all it’s NOT a law.  It’s more like a “game plan” or a “road map” to follow.

It’s a liberal/socialist/environmentalist manifesto in the same vein as the Communist Manifesto.

Yes…, that’s exactly what it is.

Let me be your guide about something you will be hearing about non-stop for a long time. The “biased, liberal, fake news media” will be getting their propaganda machine cranked up into overdrive for this one.

The people that put this “Green New Deal” resolution together were either high on drugs, extremely naive, extremely confused, stupid, or some combination of all of the above, in my opinion.

So…, let’s see exactly what we have here.

This resolution validates all of its proposed actions based on the October 2018 report entitled “Special Report on Global Warming [of 1.5 degrees centigrade]” by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the November 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment report.

If the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to be believed, humanity has just over a decade to get carbon emissions under control before catastrophic climate change impacts become unavoidable.

At the rate our government works, I guess we should all start planning our funerals, or preparing to live underground, and stockpiling food and water, because nothing is going to happen over the next ten years to fix our environment, if in fact it is broken, and if in fact it is our fault.

The United States is already the most environmentally friendly country, among major industrialized nations in the world by the way.  You sure wouldn’t know this by the way the “biased, liberal, fake news media” demonizes the USA on a daily basis.  Is China, Russia, India, Germany, The United Kingdom or Japan on board with any of this?  Because we surely cannot effect global climate change without global participation.

If the Paris Climate Agreement is any indication of the level of global participation we could expect, we’re in trouble!

In the Paris Climate Agreement, which President Trump wisely backed the U.S. out of, all of these other countries pledged their support with flowery environmental words and swore to meet the new pollution regulations AFTER the U.S. had piloted the proposed pollution levels for the first 10-20 years of the agreement!

Such determination!

Such support!

Such disingenuousness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The resolution consists of a preamble, five goals, 14 projects, and 15 requirements. The preamble establishes that there are two crises, a climate crisis and an economic crisis of wage stagnation and growing inequality.

The goals are: achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, creating jobs, providing for a just transition, and securing clean air and water.

The projects are things like: decarbonizing electricity, transportation, and industry, restoring ecosystems, and upgrading buildings and electricity grids.

Our liberal/socialist/environmentalist friends have managed to incorporate virtually all aspects of our society, economy, employment, racial issues, gender issues and government into their “end all, be all” “primary directive.”

The document itself is not even 14 pages long, so please, read it for yourself if you get the chance.

In the meantime, let’s take a look at some excerpts taken directly from the resolution:

“Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’); Whereas, climate change constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States…”

Say what?

Are you starting to get the point?

This new Raw Deal…, I mean Green Deal, is your typical “bleeding heart” bunch of politically correct mumbo jumbo.

Here are some of the more detailed goals taken directly from the resolution:

“Upgrade all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”

Well gee…, that doesn’t sound expensive at all.

“Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry.”

What exactly is meant by “spurring?”  I’m guessing it means spending more money.

“Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible…”

“Working collaboratively” mean dictating unmanageable pollution standards.

“Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and high-speed rail.”

“Overhauling transportation systems” sounds like a lot of money…, again.

“A Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses…”

This last part is just a bunch concepts that sound good, but will never actually happen.  Just like with The Affordable Care Act legislation, there will be nothing inclusive or transparent about it.

“To achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects:”

“Providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization.”

“Making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries; directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries.”

Mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money!!!

“Ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level; ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition.”

“Ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers” means only selected “enlightened” liberal individuals and groups will dictate to all of the rest of us “knuckle-draggers” what to think.

“Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”

In the government world “Guaranteeing” something means there will be no budgetary concerns.

“Strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment; strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors.”

“Enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections, to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States.”

Hasn’t President Trump already pretty much taken care of this one?

“Ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused.”

This means eminent domain will be abused.

“Obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous people for all decisions that affect indigenous people and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous people, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous people.”

Here’s your “bone” Native-Americans!

“Ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and providing all people of the United States with: high-quality health care; affordable, safe, and adequate housing; economic security; and access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”

This last section, and the last section of the resolution, is kind of a catch-all.

According to David Roberts for Vox.com, “The question of how to pay for the many public investments called for in the GND [Green New Deal] is still a bit of a political minefield. There are centrist Democrats who still believe in the old PAYGO rules, keeping a “balanced budget” within a 10-year window. There are Democrats who think deficit fears have been exaggerated and there’s nothing wrong with running a deficit to drive an economic transition. And there are Democrats who have gone full Modern Monetary Theory, which is way too complicated to explain here but amounts to the notion that, short of inflation, the level of the deficit is effectively irrelevant, as long as we’re getting the economy we want.  That discussion is just getting underway, and the better part of valor is to do what the GND resolution does: say nothing about it. Leave it for later.”

Just in case you’re keeping score at home, the Green New Deal includes a “federal job guarantee,” the right to unionize, liberal trade and monopoly policies, and universal housing and health care.

In other words, “Hello Socialism…, here we come!”

Some of this stuff is even too far left for Nancy Pelosi!  She is actually coming under some attack for even having the slightest bit of skepticism about some of the goals in the Green New Deal!

Remember the name Rhiana Gunn-Wright.  She has apparently been tabbed to be the architect of any official policy platforms developed from the Green New Deal resolution.

“Obviously, figuring out how to fundamentally transform the world’s largest economy is a lot for one person to take on. When Gunn-Wright was asked if she knows what she’s gotten into, she laughs. “It’s really exciting!”

Do you mind if I ask if this person has ever really done anything regarding any of this stuff, or is she just working from a theoretical stand point?  Has she ever had a non-political job?  Does she really know anything about economics?

“If you have more money or access to power, you can either opt out or pay to make it simpler,” she says. “The people who will have to go through all the mess are generally poorer people, with the least access to power.”

So it’ll be just like usual…, with the rich liberal entertainers, athletes, businessmen and politicians being exempt or being able to “buy” their way out of the policies the rest of us are forced to deal with.  Again…, “do as I say not as I do.”

David Roberts for Vox.com Thinks, “Gunn-Wright’s command of the issues, coupled with her unapologetic belief in the public sector to “shape markets and direct innovation,” coupled with her evident concern for the low-income and working classes, make me excited to see what New Consensus produces.”

So…, apparently Mr. Roberts is just as clueless as the authors of the resolution, Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ms. Gunn-Wright and all of their partners in crime.

Ocasio-Cortez calls for 100 percent renewable electricity within 10 years, but very few policy experts believe that is possible.

By their own admission, the top three challenges facing the GND are paying for it, convincing the public, and winning over Democrats.

Roberts adds, “In the real world, if the GND looks like it has any chance of becoming a reality, it will face a giant right-wing smear campaign, coordinated across conservative media, think tanks, and politicians, funded by effectively unlimited fossil fuel wealth. The right will rush to define the GND as a silly, ridiculous, naive, unaffordable government boondoggle meant to destroy your way of life and funnel your taxpayer money to Democratic constituencies like illegal immigrants.”

That’s because, Mr. Roberts, the Green New Deal IS “a silly, ridiculous, naive, unaffordable government boondoggle meant to destroy your way of life and funnel your taxpayer money to Democratic constituencies like illegal immigrants.”

Trumpeting the truth about this foolishness is not a “right-wing smear campaign,” it’s just a matter of combating the propaganda of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” and the rest of “the swamp.”

Well, there you have it.  I hope this helped.

Like I said…, we’re not going to stop hearing about the Green New Deal anytime soon.

 

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.

ocasio-cortez inventions

 

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

I hope I’m wrong about our next Attorney General…, but I’m pretty sure I’m not.

President Trump has nominated William (Bill) Barr to be the next Attorney General of The United States.

Mr. Barr has been going through his confirmation hearings in The Senate this week, and it appears he will be confirmed.

So, who is this guy?

First off, he’s a lawyer.

From 1973 to 1977, Mr. Barr was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency.

He was then a law clerk to Judge Malcolm Wilkey of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1977 through 1978.

He served on the domestic policy staff at the Reagan White House from May 3, 1982 to September 5, 1983, with his official title being Deputy Assistant Director for Legal Policy.  He was also in private practice for nine years with the Washington law firm of Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge.

In 1989, at the beginning of his administration, President George H. W. Bush appointed Barr to the U.S. Department of Justice as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, an office which functions as the legal advisor for the President and executive agencies.

In May 1990, Barr was appointed Deputy Attorney General, the official responsible for day-to-day management of the DOJ.  According to media reports, Barr was generally praised for his professional management of the Department.

During August 1991, when then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh resigned to campaign for the Senate, Barr was named Acting Attorney General.

President Bush then nominated him to be the next Attorney General, and served in that role from 1991–1993.

Upon leaving the DOJ in 1994, Barr became Executive Vice President and General Counsel of GTE Corporation, where he served for 14 years.

In 2008, when GTE merged with Bell Atlantic to become Verizon Communications, he left that position. While at GTE, from 1997 to 2005 Barr also served on the Board of Visitors of the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg.

In 2009, Barr was briefly of counsel to the firm Kirkland & Ellis.

From 2010 until 2017, he advised corporations on government enforcement matters and regulatory litigation.

He rejoined Kirkland and Ellis in 2017.

So, he has played this game before, and he seems to be considered a “conservative.”

But is that good enough?  Let’s take a closer look.

First of all, the Senate democrats don’t seem to be putting up much of a fuss against Mr. Barr.  That’s the first indication that he may not be what he appears to be.

If Bill Barr is confirmed, he would become Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s supervisor.

Barr has had a “personal relationship” with Robert Mueller for more than 25 years, according to Richard Manning of Fox News.

Also, “Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham revealed that Barr worked with Mueller when Barr previously served as attorney general from 1991 to 1993 under President George H.W. Bush. But on top of that, the two were “best friends” and their wives attended Bible study together.”

Oh…, c’mon!

“When added to the knowledge that Mueller had attended the weddings of Barr’s children, it is clear that Barr’s relationship with the special counsel is extremely close.”

Okay, we just jumped from DEFCON 1 to DEFCON 5!

I may be mistaken, but wouldn’t Barr’s personal relationship with Robert Mueller be reason enough for him to end up recusing himself from the whole situation like Jeff Sessions did?

Just sayin’.

Richard Manning then added, “Hopefully, President Trump has found the honest man who not only can shine a light on the corruption within the Justice Department but also has the guts and the legal gravitas to do something about it, becoming the swamp’s worse nightmare.”

“With that background and perspective, Barr could be a brilliant choice to run the Justice Department. With public confidence in the Justice Department and FBI at the bottom of the barrel, Barr’s intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the department would allow him to begin the cleanup that is desperately needed.”

Then again, he may be just another “swamp monster” in disguise.

It is common knowledge now that Robert Mueller knowingly used Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants based on Democratic research that has since been called by the then-FBI Director, James Comey, “salacious and unverified” as the foundation its Russia probe.

And the Justice Department was so committed to their partisan, treasonous, mission that officials deliberately turned a blind eye to very real concerns about the relationship of both former President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, with both Russia and Hillary Clinton’s apparent violations of laws related to handling classified documents.

“As Attorney General, will Barr excuse his old friend Mueller and former Justice Department colleagues, giving them a pass?” Richard Manning asks.

I’m pretty sure the answer to that question is a big “yes.”

“Or hopefully, President Trump has found the honest man who not only can shine a light on the corruption within the Justice Department but also has the guts and the legal gravitas to do something about it, becoming ‘he swamp’s’ worse nightmare.”

I hope I am wrong and that this is the case, Mr. Manning, but history would suggest that I am not wrong, and that not much will change, and that all of these “swamp rats” will remain above the law.

I’ll keep you posted.

 

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.

bill barr

 

 

 

 

“Dan Rather and the birth of fake news?”  No, “Dan Rather and the ‘biased, liberal, fake news media’ finally got exposed!”

I’m referring to a new documentary on Fox Nation, which is Fox News Channel’s new subscription-based, on-demand streaming service.

Some of you might be asking, “Who the heck is Dan Rather?”  Well, in case you’re not familiar with him, Dan Rather began his career in Texas and was on the scene of the Kennedy assassination in Dallas in 1963.  His reporting elevated his position in CBS News, where he was The White House correspondent beginning in 1964.  He served as foreign correspondent in London and Vietnam over the next two years before returning to The White House correspondent position, covering the Nixon presidency, including the trip to China, Watergate scandal and his ultimate resignation.

When Walter Cronkite (“America’s newsman”) retired in 1981, Rather was promoted to news anchor for the CBS Evening News, a role he then occupied for 24 years.  Rather was one of the “Big Three” nightly news anchors in the U.S. from the 1980s through the early 2000s.

Okay, so now let’s get back to the story.

According to Art Moore of WND.com (World Net Daily), “Long before ‘fake news’ became an issue on Capitol Hill, a news story that threatened to derail George W. Bush’s re-election was debunked by bloggers, launching a new era of citizen journalism challenging the establishment-media gatekeepers.”

The report from September of 2004 that led to Dan Rather’s resignation as the anchor of CBS News is the focus of a new documentary, “Black Eye: Dan Rather and the Birth of Fake News.”

In the case being highlighted here, Mr. Rather and his team presented memos, supposedly from 1973, indicating George W. Bush had received special treatment during his time in the Texas Air National Guard that prevented him from be deployed in Vietnam.

“But bloggers who examined the documents posted on the CBS News website found they had been produced by a Microsoft Word processor that didn’t exist in 1973,” added Art Moore of WND.com.

CBS initially defended the documents, but after two weeks of further scrutiny concluded their authenticity could not be proved and called its reporting a “mistake.”

The network fired producer Mary Mapes, and a little more than two months later Dan Rather resigned.

The good guys 1, fake news 0.

CBS later commissioned an “independent panel” that found “serious defects in the reporting and production” of the Sept. 8, 2004, segment on “60 Minutes Wednesday.”

Let’s get a few things clear here:

One, there was no real “independent panel.”

And two, there were no “serious defects in the reporting and production.”  The story that was produced and reported on was done so intentionally to discredit George W. Bush.

Just like the hundreds and hundreds of “fake news” stories that have been manufactured and passed on to us as “news” since then all the way up till now.

In a 2006 radio interview, however, Mr. Rather defended his reporting and rejected the CBS panel’s findings.

No kidding.

The network stood by the “panel’s findings.”

No one man is bigger than “the swamp” itself.

The following year, Rather filed a lawsuit against CBS and its former corporate parent, Viacom, claiming he had been made a “scapegoat.” The suit was dismissed in 2009 by the New York State Appeals Court.

Dan Rather, who is now 86, has not commented on the new the documentary…, yet.

He did recently Tweet, however, “It‘s like we’re living through a bad parody of reality television,” he wrote. “But at least when that kind of stuff is on TV you know it isn’t really real and you can chose not to watch.”

Thanks for your input Dan.  We can totally relate.  It’s just like you were a “bad parody” of an unbiased news anchor.

 

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.

da rather fake news

“If liberals didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.”

That quote is by Burt Prelutsky, an award winning author and screenwriter.

The word “liberals” here covers what we would call “the swamp,” which includes establishment politicians/appointees and the “biased, liberal, fake news media.”

The latest examples of the left’s double standards have reared their heads in the forms of former Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen and former FBI Director James Comey.

For some reason, James Comey is under the impression that he is able to dictate to Congress how, when and if he will respond to their lawful subpoena to testify regarding the Clinton email scandal and the unlawful spying on the Trump campaign on his watch.

Former congressman and now Fox News contributor, Jason Chaffetz, brought up a good point when he asked, “Why is Michael Cohen prosecuted when Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder and Lois Lerner were not?”

Yes, that is a very good question, but a question that we all know the answer to as well.  The answer is that “the swamp” is very good at protecting their own, while vilifying and attacking those who threaten “the swamp” to any degree.

“With a Republican president in place and soon-to-be Democrat-run House, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has conveniently remembered that they have the ability to prosecute people who lie to Congress.  This was a power they had inexplicably forgotten about during the 10 years that Democrats were benefiting from witnesses who lied.”

And that’s not even taking into account all of the witnesses and participants who were granted complete immunity by a complicit FBI and a complicit DOJ.

“No doubt there should be consequences and accountability if you testify to Congress under oath and blatantly lie or violate the law.  But the DOJ seems to have different standards based on which party’s political fortunes will be impacted.  It is this unequal application of justice that is dividing the country and threatens peace.”

“True peace is not merely the absence of war, it is the presence of justice.” – Jane Addams, the first woman to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

“Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former attorney, struck a plea deal with the DOJ for lying to Congress.  But what about all the other egregious cases of misconduct interacting with Congress?  Why weren’t those pursued or prosecuted?”

They weren’t pursued because the people at the upper levels could not throw these people “under the bus” without them in turn throwing their bosses “under the bus.” It’s one big “CYA” lovefest!

“Let’s look back at how a very similar case was handled just a few short years ago.  After FBI Director James Comey announced there would be no charges against Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or any of her associates for a variety of potential unlawful acts, Comey testified before the House Oversight Committee.”

We know now that James Comey drafted his Hillary Clinton “forgiveness” letter months before he even heard any of the findings and evidence against her.  Her “innocence” was a predetermined outcome.

Jason Chaffetz continues by saying, “When I asked Comey specifically if he had reviewed Secretary Clinton’s testimony before the Benghazi Select Committee, he confirmed the FBI never reviewed nor considered that testimony.  As Chair of Oversight, I along with Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte sent a formal request to the DOJ.  We never even got a response.  Note the contradiction: Cohen is forced into a plea deal and Clinton’s lies to Congress were not even reviewed.”

The arrogance of the leadership of the DOJ and the FBI is outrageous.  Who does this collection of appointees and hired help think they work for?  They apparently have the impression that they don’t have to answer to anybody.  But that is not the case.  The duly elected Congress, the representatives of We the People, are charged by The Constitution to oversee and keep in line these departments on behalf of The People.

“The inconsistency always seems to conveniently favor the Democrats and penalize those connected to Donald Trump.”

“Eric Holder [Obama’s first Attorney General] became the first Attorney General (AG) in the history of the United States of America to be held in contempt of Congress.  Nearly a year after the formal vote in the House of Representatives, the DOJ said they were going to exercise prosecutorial discretion and not pursue charges.  Again, note the contrast.  Cohen is prosecuted. The Holder matter is not even presented to a grand jury as required by law.”

“Last year the DOJ settled two lawsuits involving 469 conservative groups by paying $3.5 million [in damages] for the targeting done by the IRS in suppressing their applications based on their conservative nature.  IRS employee Lois Lerner and others were never prosecuted by the DOJ.  In other words, DOJ pays for wrongdoing by the IRS but nobody is held accountable.  Yet, Cohen is the one they do pursue.”

Can you just imagine the uproar by the “biased, liberal, fake news media” if the shoe had been on the other foot?

“In the Fast & Furious gun running operation, the DOJ knowingly and willingly allowed nearly 2,000 firearms, mostly AK-47s, to be illegally purchased by drug cartels.  Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed with one of those guns.  Responding officially to Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the DOJ flatly denied the critical aspects of the case.  Ten months later the DOJ withdrew the letter because of the lies and inaccuracies.”

Former President Barack Obama has been quoted as saying, “I didn’t have any scandals during my administration.”  Just another example of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” choosing to look the other way and capitulate to the false narrative propagated by President Obama.

“Was anybody dismissed, reprimanded or prosecuted?  No, but now that the tables are turned, Cohen is being prosecuted for the much lesser crime of not fully articulating the extent of Donald Trump’s personal business dealings.”

“There isn’t enough room on the internet to list all of the examples of double standards and unequal applications of the law. The inconsistency always seems to conveniently favor the Democrats and penalize those connected to Donald Trump.  This obvious disconnect legitimately erodes faith in our justice system and further divides the country.”

This, of course, is completely fine with the democrats, as “further dividing the country” is one of their main goals.  And they are able to achieve this goal with the willing cooperation of a “fake news” and  propagandist media who twist the truth around to attack those who are actually seeking justice.

“The most sacred of the duties of a government is to do equal and impartial justice to all citizens.” – Thomas Jefferson

 

Jason Chaffetz is a Fox News contributor who was the chairman of the U.S. House Oversight Committee when he served as a representative from Utah.  He is also the author of “The Deep State: How an Army of Bureaucrats Protected Barack Obama and is Working to Destroy the Trump Agenda.”

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

obama double standard

 

Just another “crippling and catastrophic failure,” brought to you by the previous Obama administration.

Oh how the news of these massively botched operations differs depending on what party is in office.

In this instance, President Obama and the democrats were presiding over this, to put it nicely, “crap storm.”

This is also why we’re not hearing anything about it until five years after it happened.

If President Trump had been in office, we would be seeing Congressional hearings, another special investigator, and wall-to-wall coverage by the “biased, liberal, fake news media.”

So what exactly are we talking about here?

Well, in a nutshell, the CIA’s undercover communications network suffered a “catastrophic” compromise back in 2013, and it all started in Iran.

What exactly is meant by “catastrophic?”

According to Zach Dorfman and Jenna McLaughlin of Yahoo News, “[At the time,] countless numbers of CIA officers scrambled to contain a disaster of global proportions: a compromise of the agency’s internet-based covert communications system used to interact with its informants in dark corners around the world.  Teams of CIA experts worked feverishly to take down and reconfigure the websites secretly used for these communications; others managed operations to quickly spirit assets to safety and oversaw other forms of triage.

‘“When this was going on, it was all that mattered,’ said one former intelligence community official.  The situation was ‘catastrophic,’ said another former senior intelligence official.”

Between 2009 and 2013, the U.S. intelligence community experienced “crippling intelligence failures” (“experiencing crippling failures” has become a hallmark of the Obama administration) related to their secret internet-based communications system.  This system was a key means for remote messaging between CIA officers and their sources on the ground around the world.

The previously unreported global problem originated in Iran and spread to other countries.

I would say that “previously unreported” is an understatement.  I believe the words, “suppressed,” “quelled,” or even “concealed” would be better choices here.

To make matters worse, the problems with the network were “left unrepaired, despite warnings about what was happening, until more than two dozen sources died in China in 2011 and 2012 as a result,” according to former intelligence and national security officials.

Dorfman and McLaughlin continue, saying, “The disaster ensnared every corner of the national security bureaucracy, from multiple intelligence agencies, congressional intelligence committees and independent contractors to internal government watchdogs, forcing a slow-moving, complex government machine to grapple with the deadly dangers of emerging technologies.”

Yahoo News’ information regarding this global CIA communications failure is based on conversations with eleven former U.S. intelligence and government officials directly familiar with the matter who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive operations.

“More than just a question of a single failure, the fiasco illustrates a breakdown that was never properly addressed. The government’s inability to address the communication system’s insecurities until after sources were rolled up in China was disastrous. ‘We’re still dealing with the fallout,’ said one former national security official. ‘Dozens of people around the world were killed because of this.’”

All of this is in addition to the 2012 Benghazi attack, which resulted in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.  CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were also killed in the melee, while ten others were wounded.

Despite persistent accusations against President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice, ten investigations, six by Republican-controlled congressional committees, did not find that they or any other high-ranking Obama administration officials had acted improperly.

Is it any wonder that this whole mess was kept on the “down low” by “the swamp?”

I’m sure, if any investigations are held regarding this debacle, the results would be the same: They would say they didn’t find that “they or any other high-ranking Obama administration officials had acted improperly.”

How about “irresponsibly?”

How about “carelessly?”

How about “stupidly?”

How about “politically” and “selfishly?”

How about “without concern for the lives of their subordinates?”

Ouch.

The whole intelligence failure started in Iran back in 2009, when the Obama administration announced the discovery of a secret Iranian underground enrichment facility.

This is what happens when you conduct foreign policy through the “biased, liberal, fake news media.”

“Angered about the breach in their security and secrecy, the Iranians went on a concerted hunt, looking for foreign spies,” said one of the former senior intelligence officials.

The ensuing pressure on the CIA’s communications system led to its demise.  “It was not built to withstand the sophisticated counterintelligence efforts of a state actor like China or Iran.”

By 2010, however, it appears that Iran had begun to identify CIA agents. And by 2011, Iranian authorities dismantled a CIA spy network in that country, said seven former U.S. intelligence officials.  Indeed, in May 2011, Iranian intelligence officials announced publicly that they had broken up a ring of 30 CIA spies.  U.S. officials later confirmed the breach.

Iran executed some of the CIA informants and imprisoned others in an intelligence setback that one of the former officials described as “incredibly damaging.”

These events hampered the CIA’s capacity to collect intelligence in Iran at a critical time, just as Tehran was forging ahead with its nuclear program.

“It’s not clear whether China and Iran cooperated, but the former officials said the communications systems used in both countries were similar. The two governments may have broken the system independently. But Iranian, Chinese and Russian officials were engaged in senior-level communications on cyber issues around this time.”

The CIA has declined to comment.

Former officials said the fallout from the compromises were likely global in scope, potentially endangering all CIA sources that used some version of this internet-based system worldwide.

As Iran was making fast inroads into the CIA’s covert communications system, back in Washington an internal complaint by a government contractor warning officials about precisely what was happening was winding its way through a bureaucratically slow appeals system.

Again, according to Dorfman and McLaughlin, “In 2008, well before the Iranians had arrested any agents, a defense contractor named John Reidy, whose job it was to identify, contact and manage human sources for the CIA in Iran, had already sounded an alarm about a ‘massive intelligence failure’ having to do with ‘communications’” with sources. According to Reidy’s publicly available but heavily redacted whistleblower disclosure, by 2010 he said he was told that the ‘nightmare scenario’ he had warned about regarding the secret communications platform had, in fact, occurred.”

Reidy refused to discuss his case with Yahoo News.

By November of 2011, Reidy was fired because of what his superiors said were “conflicts of interest.”

In his 2014 appeal to the intelligence community inspector general, Reidy noted that CIA agents were “in danger,” and that the “CIA is aware of this.” “The design and maintenance of the system is flawed.”

Reidy’s complaint wasn’t fully addressed for many years.

“Can you imagine how different this whole story would’ve turned out if the CIA [inspector general] had acted on Reidy’s warnings instead of going after him?” said Kel McClanahan, Reidy’s attorney. “Can you imagine how different this whole story would’ve turned out if the congressional oversight committees had done oversight instead of taking CIA’s word that he was just a troublemaker?”

Sound familiar?

“Irvin McCullough, a national security analyst with the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit that works with whistleblowers, put the issue in even starker terms. ‘This is one of the most catastrophic intelligence failures since September 11th,’ he said. ‘And the CIA punished the person who brought the problem to light.’”

A spokesperson for the Senate Intelligence Committee has declined to comment.

The House Intelligence Committee did not respond to requests for comments either.

Hmmm, that’s odd.

Please note that the words “Senate” and “Intelligence” are typically mutually exclusive (meaning they don’t go together)!

One of the central concerns among those familiar with the scope of the breakdown is the institutions responsible for it were never held accountable.

Even several years after the breach, the concern within the intelligence community is accountability.

“People will say, ‘I went to the inspector general and it didn’t work; I went elsewhere and it didn’t work.’ People will see it as a game. It will lead to corruption, and it will lead to espionage.  When people see that the system is corrupt, it affects everything.”

“In the end,” said the former official, “our biggest insider threat is our own institution.”

So who oversaw this whole mess at the time? Besides Barack Obama, at the top of course, we had Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, then John Kerry as Secretary of State 2013-2016.  Leon Panetta (a longtime Clinton flunky) was the CIA Director 2009-2011, followed by General David Petraeus 2011-2012, and finally followed by John “Benedict Arnold” Brennan, who was the CIA Director 2012-2017.

As I was reviewing the article from Yahoo News, by Dorfman and McLaughlin, I was struck by the fact that over the course of a 3,260 word article, the name “Panetta” was never mentioned, the name “Petraeus” was never mentioned, nor was the name “Brennan.”  The names “Clinton” and “Kerry” were not mentioned either.  The name “Obama” was mentioned only once, and that was only regarding the “Obama administration” announcement of the discovery of a secret Iranian underground enrichment facility.  No mention at all regarding this whole CIA communication fiasco.

As was mentioned before, it is all about accountability, and more specifically a lack thereof when it comes democrats and “the swamp” in general.

I guess looking back, we could make the claim they were all too busy playing their little political power games and spying on American citizens to worry about their real responsibilities.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

obama political failures

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑