AOC is Digging Her Own Political Grave

Here's an article from The Horn News a good friend of mine sent me. It's both such good, and horrifying, news about this out-of-control socialist/leftist who's established quite a reputation as a "dunderhead" that I had to share it here.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

by Frank Holmes, reporter

The walls are closing in on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The media tried to make the freshman congresswoman a star, but her popularity has hit new lows.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues want nothing to do with her.

And Cortez represents one of the safest blue districts in the country, but her re-election is in doubt.

Now, she’s lashing out by promising to use the government to punish her personal enemies.

She’s been getting pushback for a plank in her unpopular “Green New Deal” that promises to hike tax rates on “the rich” up to an astronomical 70%.

But she doesn’t mean rich people like Bernie Sanders, her fellow “Democratic Socialist” who just confessed he’s a millionaire.

AOC says she’s going to handpick a tiny group of people she hates—“like 10 people”—and walk away with everything they own!

She went on a rant of all the people she wants to bankrupt.

“When we say ‘tax the rich,’ we mean nesting-doll yacht rich,” she tweeted.

“For-profit prison rich. Betsy DeVos, student-loan-shark rich. Trick-the-country-into-war rich,” she rambled.

AOC said she had a right to clean out her enemies’ bank accounts, because “THAT kind of rich is simply not good for society, & it’s like 10 people.”

Forget the fact that it’s totally un-American to pass a bill aimed at a few, specific individuals–that’s called a “bill of attainder,” and it’s unconstitutional. The Constitution means nothing to the Democrats, anyway.

But publicly broadcasting that you’re going to use your power to get your political foes, no matter what? That kind of chutzpah is breathtaking.

One writer compared her tweet to the Soviet Union’s liquidation of people it declared enemies of the state.

Another challenged Cortez to “name those 10 people…Seriously, we are all waiting. This should be a very simple request.”

This isn’t even the first time AOC admitted she wanted to abuse her power to settle personal scores.

Last December, Donald Trump Jr. trolled AOC with a devastating Instagram post showing President Trump telling Cortez he’s against socialism, “Because Americans want to walk their dogs, not eat them.”

Even though she hadn’t been sworn into Congress yet, Cortez threatened to throw him in the slammer!

She threatened “Junior” by saying it’s a bad “idea to troll a member of a body that will have subpoena power in a month.”

She ended by telling him to “have fun!”—dealing with all the charges she’d hit him with once she took office.

Make the bubble-headed congresswoman look stupid on social media? See you in court!

If AOC thinks she can jail the commander-in-chief’s first-born son, who couldn’t she destroy?

She’s already put the crosshairs on some of the most powerful people in the country. She’s trying to use her seat on the House committee that oversees banking laws to punish banks that do business with pro-Second Amendment groups. She’s singled out, harassed, and shamed financial execs on national television.

These businessmen didn’t break a single law, but Democrats hate gun owners, so off with their heads!

AOC has gotten more aggressive—some people would say unhinged—as her popularity has tanked, and there are signs she could even be a one-term congressman.

A Gallup poll found her negatives had doubled in six months.

Her fellow Democrats are distancing themselves from her as fast as possible. Five congresswomen from pro-Trump districts in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey went on a national tour dissing  Cortez’s far-Left policies.

Roll Call newspaper said, “The message…was clear: Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t represent them, and she’s not the one who’s going to help Democrats maintain their majority.”

Things are so bad that Cortez may not even win her ultra-Democrat seat in the Bronx.  Her approval rating has skydived by 26 points since she was elected, mostly over her chasing thousands of good-paying jobs out of her district.

AOC has decided that voters might kick her out of office in 2020, so she wants to do as much damage as possible first.

Until now, Republicans just worried about the ex-bartender’s slow wit.

“She’s a dunderhead!” said  Fox News host Mark Levi. “She doesn’t know a damn thing. She hasn’t done a damn thing.”

But now they say her plan to use the government to target her enemies has crossed a dangerous line.

“This is why socialism turns into authoritarianism,” said Ari Fleischer, who was press secretary for President George W. Bush. “This is very Venezuela of her.”

First, socialists take you money. Then they take your freedom. And in the end, they take your life.

At least AOC has admitted what’s really driving her lust for power!

Frank Holmes is a reporter for The Horn News. He is a veteran journalist and an outspoken conservative that talks about the news that was in his weekly article, “On The Holmes Front.”

This is How Much D.S.H.S. Cares

I'm without words! And to realize that our tax dollars are paying for such incompetence!

I'll link to the story here, and let the article do the explaining.

= = = = = = = = = = = = 

And... this is how delusional and clueless Seattle Mayor Durkan is regarding the condition of neighborhoods in her city. As if that's not enough evidence, there's this site about the growing garbage in Seattle.

Success & Freedom's Key Component

One would assume that a teacher's job is to not only instill knowledge into the youth they're in charge of, but that they would also impart those bits of wisdom from experience to prepare them for life ahead. This is what makes for a great movie about an outstanding teacher, such as we've seen, or heard about in past years. But is there any of that happening anymore in our public schools today? I wonder.

After four years of serving my country in the military, I decided to to serve future generations by going into the education profession. It was a difficult experience, for the difference between the two experiences was like water and oil. Even though the first was only four years, the second was a little more than seven times that.  There was a general shift of philosophy in education over that longer period as well.

When I first entered the classroom those who had served in the military were considered a positive influence on the children they would educate. Discipline was considered a critical factor for young, developing minds, to be successful in life ahead. However, by the time I retired, the social climate was one which either despised that factor, or did its best to neutralize its impact.

Early on, discipline was mostly under the determination and application of the teacher when being applied. We understood each child directly over the school year and applied what we knew was appropriate for them. Our military experience had taught us that discipline is the key to personal freedom, and we wanted to impart those concepts to our students. However, over the years, I experienced the gradual withdraw of that individual control of applying discipline in our classrooms and a shift to the administrative level.

Then, there was the third element in the equation; the parent who fought our attempts to impart lessons about life. This was at a time when many parents were believing that teachers were, for some strange reason, attempting to undermine their parenting skills. As an example of a low level attempt to deal with advising a student who was unruly, I decided to request that the student's parent come in for a teacher/parent/student conference to discuss the problem. In the process of discussing the problem, the student expressed her frustration that it wasn't fair that there seemed to be a difference for the issue being discussed. In my attempt to explain why this view of the student's was misguided, I began to explain by pointing out that "Life isn't fair." But, before I could further explain why I was saying this, and give an illustrative example, the parent blew up at me for saying such a thing and declared that they were doing their best to teach their child that everything should be fair in life. Naturally, this situation made it even more difficult to impart a concept for the student, when the parent had a completely opposite understanding and wouldn't even allow me to finish up a "life lesson".

It was my assessment that this shift of discipline from teacher to administrator was due to a combination of three things. First the district's growing fear of litigation - parents were becoming more "sue happy" when they disagreed with how their child's consequences were meted out for inappropriate behavior - second, corporal punishment, that is any physical contact - even taking a student by the arm to remove them - was becoming a big "No, no!", (that was considered abuse) and third, there was a growing trend to allow only the school counselor, or administrator in the building, to decide what the student's punishment would be when they weren't even present to witness their behavior and the student often became highly adept at spinning the story to their favor.

Over the years, it became obvious to me that the student who was unwilling to comply with my initial verbal directives to put their behavior in check became bolder once they were aware, and had determined that this new arrangement of secondary consequences usually resulted in less severe outcomes. Now, as I've substituted over the last ten years, I've witnessed many incidences where students are bold to the point of physical violence against their classmates right in front of the substitute. 

Most of the time, these instances are repeated time and time again, with a record by the principal being kept and suspension, or expulsion, is only applied when the particular student has accumulated a sufficient quantity of infractions to warrant it. Meanwhile, other students are the target of unnecessary repeat violence because the teacher is not to interfere for potentially doing something in the process of breaking it up that could get them disciplined as well.

Consequently, we now have youth in public schools who are not learning logical consequences of their actions, but the empowerment they now realize they have by just confronting their teacher and claiming falsehoods about their teacher to get their way. (I will not go into detail here, but when I was told some of the things which were asserted by students from an administrator about me, it was utterly shocking.)

Now, you're probably thinking, well, this is just one teacher's sour grapes, or, this isn't that widespread. Then, I invite you to watch an eight minute video of an N.Y.U. professor who was drummed out of his position because he dared to go against the institution's directive. If his more recent story isn't adequate cause for alarm about what's happening in our schools of higher learning now, then nothing will. Oh, I forgot to mention that he was an avowed leftist/communist! (The Red Pill Expo is put on by the Freedom Force International.)

Looking Ahead to 2020

America is growing weary and confused about what seems like a never ending and highly complex "Russian Collusion" story. Half the country is convinced that Trump is a Russian plant to destroy our democracy, while the other half knows that some nasty operatives have managed to impede the president's first half of his first term. As to the details, well, that's another story that for most folks who try to keep on top of the investigators being investigated - thank God we now have A.G. Barr - are too busy to follow with much clarity what's being discovered. There are just too many players! 

Hopefully, enough who are keeping track of this don't lose sight of the two most important points; the predicate (motive or reason) for spying on Trump, and why those behind it didn't notify him during the campaign, or after being elected. These two points will be what the newly appointed U.S. Attorney Durham's prosecutions hing on. Then too, let's not forget that none of this story would NOT have been disclosed to the world had Hillary Clinton won the election. This video interview from Judicial Watch w/ Andy McCarthy is enlightening.


Then, there's the fact that the 2020 campaign is gearing up. Like a 23 headed hydra, the Democrats who are running all are convinced that they've got the answer; even more socialism! As though they're saying, "Look, I can do better than Madura in Venezuela."

From my perspective as of today, my gut tells me that because of the accomplishment thus far of the Trump Administration after two years - despite the interference by his opposition to discredit and eventually impeach him - President Trump will be the Republican nominee; hands down. Although he's not remade the party thus far, those across the nation who've benefited and seen how he's truly taking measures to actually make America great again, will overwhelmingly vote for him.

As for the Democrat nominee... currently the pundits are saying it's going to be Biden, but in my honest opinion, he's too old and more of an empty suit than anything. I would tend to predict the Democrat nominee will be one of the following; Biden or Sanders. So, if I'm correct about Biden, it's obvious who may well get the nomination; especially without Hillary fixing it against him this time. 

I think any of the others already have said something, or just are showing well in their own states; with most of them running third or worse in early polling. It will be interesting to see how things develop over the next year, since at this point in 2020, or sooner, we should see most of the field  already dropped out.

No matter! Whoever goes against Trump is going to get sliced and diced during the general phase of the 2020 election debates by him. However, I believe there is a danger in this scenario. If too many voters assume that this will be the case, and they choose to tune out the primaries portion of the election, things could possibly change for the worse. 

Then again, that will depend on just how much occurs as the investigation comes out with and who is not only indicted, but tried, convicted and sentenced. However, given the current attitude of the Media (D) I'm not holding my breath on expecting a change of heart on their part. They know just how critical a part they play in promoting their leftist propaganda.

The Mueller Myth

As I've followed the development of the "Russian Collusion" hoax over the past few years, I've noticed something interesting happen to Muller's reputation.

When it was first announced that Mueller was selected by Rod Rosentein to head up the investigation into the hoax concocted by the Hillary Campaign, Fusion GPS, the DNC and other sycophants, the general census in the media and inside D.C. was that he was the "perfect" man to take on this critical task.

He's a Republican, he's the former F.B.I. Director the first decade of the 2000s, he knows all the right people to get the job done right, was the general reaction when new broke that Rosentein announced his choice.

Okay! So, the country, surprised that our election might have been tampered with, are thinking, "Great, this guy's gonna get to the bottom of this because a clean nosed guy who everyone trusts is heading the investigation up." Not so fast!

Only a few days ago this week, news was released through a F.O.I.A. Judicial Watch initiated, requesting the Mueller team's office calendar. And something rather revealing has been found to clearly taint the reputation of Mueller. It had to do with who Mueller selected to be in charge of hiring team members to begin the process of carrying out its duties.

It turns out that the very same individual I've written about in the past posts accounting prosecutorial abuses and one with a reputation as a "Pit-bull" lawyer, is the same guy chosen by Mueller to pick underlings on the investigation team tasked with looking into Trump's campaign members.

Politico posted an article this past week revealing information from that F.O.I.A. Judicial Watch requested, and it reveals that it was Andrew Weissman who was in charge of selecting those team members! Reading the article's two paragraphs just below the picture in the middle of the article are the key ones to read.

The first of these two paragraphs addresses Weissman's interviews for the team with privacy concerns as the grounds for those who didn't join the team being redacted. While that may be partly true, my suspicion is that individuals were being protected for political reasons.

In the second of these two paragraphs, the key sentence to note is the one about "... many of those hired had donated to Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, or other Democrats." While this point has been known for months as a point of speculation from hearsay, we now had hard evidence to back it up as fact.

So, if we combine this fact with the reports' results and the liberal's reaction of extreme disappointment that it didn't provide them with any information with which they could indict Trump with, Mueller's reputation has been proven to be less than stellar; especially when it has been revealed that it was Mueller himself who delivered material for the Uranium One transaction with Russia.

Durham For Accountability

This Wall Street Journal article today about A.G. Barr appointing U.S. Attorney Durham is worth reading. However, in my honest opinion, it is mild and "safe" for the general public's consumption since the WSJ cadre are, in essence, moderate conservatives who identify the voters who support the president, who they dislike, as "Trumpians", but tolerate only because he's made them richer than they even imagined. In my opinion, if no convictions are forthcoming from this investigation of the investigators, then they'll see just how right they are about demanding heads on a pike.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Attorney General William Barr has assigned U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate possible abuses by law enforcement and intelligence officials in the 2016 election campaign, and the reaction has been predictably partisan. Trumpians are demanding heads on pikes while liberals are calling it a hunt for conspiracies that didn’t exist. We see it as a necessary step toward accountability and restoring public confidence in America’s enforcement agencies.

Mr. Durham comes with more experience than even special counsel Robert Mueller in navigating U.S. law enforcement, including the FBI and intelligence services. He uncovered rogue FBI behavior in the case of Boston mob boss Whitey Bulger, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey tasked him to look at the CIA’s destruction of videos of its terrorist interrogation program. As a U.S. Attorney, Mr. Durham will have the power to convene a grand jury and subpoena people outside the government. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been looking into

some of the same questions, but he lacks similar power. Mr. Durham can also pick up any criminal referrals from Mr. Horowitz’s looming report.

Mr. Durham doesn’t strike us as the type who will answer to anyone’s political agenda, and he may not bring criminal indictments. He didn’t in the CIA case. But appointing someone of his standing and experience is important to getting to the truth about the FBI counterintelligence probe of Trump campaign officials, the FBI’s apparent misleading of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to get a warrant against Trump adviser Carter Page, and other seeming abuses.

Investigating potential FBI or CIA abuses is arguably more important to American democracy than the Russia collusion probe. Tens of millions of Americans suspect that public officials interfered in the presidential election. Especially because Mr. Mueller did not investigate the FBI he previously led, someone needs to hold abuses to account or clear the air if nothing illegal took place.

What Happened to Balanced Reporting?

It died during the Obama Administration's eight years from the relentless fawning over their 'can do nothing wrong' president, that's what happened!

Nancy Benac, a reporter who's article appeared today for AP News, reports on Mueller's silence during the aftermath of the release of his report and takes a tone that his silence leaves the nation in the lurch about whether Pres. Trump is guilty of collusion or obstruction. How typical of the Media (D)!

I couldn't help but notice that her presumption was that, because Mueller has failed to appear before the Congressional Intel Committee, those who don't agree with A.G. Barr's assessment of the report are being denied closure on this marathon hoax produced by Hillary and her cohorts to try and save her reputation; whatever's left of it.

And why, I've always pondered, do these reporters quote someone who agrees with the reporter's  premise of their article? It seems that 99.9% of the time, the source is from some eastern state where the political orientation tends to run liberal.

The truly sad reality is that most of these people who feel this way are completely unaware of the mountain - which keeps getting larger and more clear as the weeks pass - aren't even aware of the evidence which proves that it is nothing but a hoax.

And then, there's Senator Grassley's remarks to the media about it. This is "classic"!!!

What is evident to me is that these heavily biased articles never change and are unending. Sort of like the wind and the rain wearing down the mountain of rock.