Democrats and Media have been Lying to you for Years

The final report by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is in and it’s as much of a vindication for President Trump, his family and his campaign staff as could be hoped for. The fact that the President and everyone on his campaign were found to not have been guilty of collusion with Russian (or anyone else) and found to not be guilty of obstruction of justice comes as a huge surprise to many CNN and MSNBC viewers in this country.

Source: Media pulled off big con with Russia collusion story – Washington Times

President Trump and to a lesser degree the Republicans in Congress have gotten more done, more victories than could have been imagined given the unprecedented opposition he has faced. While he continues to frequently stick his foot in his mouth with his boorish and at times childish Tweets, he continues to get the work done of the American people. He continues to strive for exactly what he was elected to do.

Since the day of his election in November 2016 the left has talked about impeaching this President. Since they didn’t have any actual proof of “high crimes and misdemeanors” they literally manufactured lies about Trump’s personal behavior and of his campaign’s colluding with a known hostile party.

The story of collusion was so ridiculous from the beginning it’s hard to believe nearly half this country was so easily bamboozled. Regarding the Russian interference in the Presidential election let’s get four things straight:

  1. Russian and/or the Soviet Union have been trying to undermine democracy in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world for decades. They’ve been involving themselves in Presidential elections as best they could since the days of Nikita Khrushchev.
  2. Investigators claim Russians spent $400,000 (that’s 400-hundred thousand) on Social Media ads to sew disunion in the U.S. during the 2016 election cycle. If true, so what? $400k is a paltry and largely ineffective amount to spend on marketing. I know. I’m a marketing expert. Additionally, much of what was advertised wasn’t in support of Trump. Almost none of it was. Much of it was in support of Bernie Sanders, the admitted Socialist.
  3. Russians did not “hack” John Podesta’s or Hillary Clinton’s emails. Instead Podesta succumbed to a phishing expedition. In other words, he was sent an email with a link that he clicked on that he should not have. Furthermore, WikiLeaks Julian Assange claims they didn’t get the Hillary emails from the Russians. And lastly, Investigators have determined that Russians tried and failed to access the National Republican Party headquarters computer’s and emails but failed due to the GOP’s security measures. (Side note: just who would you trust with your country’s security just based on this information? Democrats who were successfully hacked? Or Republicans who weren’t?)

While falsely claiming that Trump was in bed with Russians, the collusion story is far from the only lie CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and other leftist, Socialist media organizations and Democrats have spread about Trump. Here’s one: Trump called neo-nazi’s and white supremacists “fine people”. That lie has Trump labelled a racist. The problem is…he never did say it. He never called the bigots at the Charlottesville, VA rally anything but deplorable people, who shouldn’t be tolerated and who have no place in the United States.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html?fbclid=IwAR14ga7lCnv6LqrSsNtC9d_8oNYIRNsVoFCSAkgH4d-NtdsTk8sLkXzjako

So? What to do now?

They only way this news of the lies and manipulation of American society can have any benefit is if enough people who hate Trump, and oppose the Conservative agenda he work’s toward finally admit that they were wrong and that they see their media and political leaders as the liars and the hypocrites that they so evidently are. Enough people must reject watching and listening to MSNBC, CNN, NBC News and reading the New York Times, Washington Post and other leftist propaganda venues. These organizations stopped being journalistic a long time ago. Rather than simply leaning their reporting toward their leftist tendencies and beliefs; these supposed news organizations have become advocates for everything we as a society used to collectively recognize as bad, evil or at least destructive. They must vote out of office the Adam Schiffs, the Nancy Pelosis, the Chuck Schumers, the AOC’s. They must recognize and embrace Making America Great Again.

I’m not holding my breath. I think the fight continues and probably gets more desperate.

Please share this blog if you agree. And please comment whether you agree or not. We welcome your thoughts.

 

March 25, 2019
Categories: Business, National Politics, Uncategorized . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: Comments Off on Democrats and Media have been Lying to you for Years

So You Think Obama had it Tough, huh? What a Whiner!

U.S. Presidential flag, 1960-present (not usua...

As the 2012 election draws near a recurring theme from supporters of President Obama is things may be bad but they were made bad by President Bush four years ago and they were so bad that our current President hasn’t had time enough to fix all the problems. What a krok! What a load of BS! 

Never in my life have I heard such a whiner who is supposed to be a leader and I am utterly amazed Democrats don’t hang their head in shame every time their leader or his surrogates speaks on this subject.

If you think Obama had it tough, just think about the circumstances other Presidents inherited and how they responded.

Official Portrait of President Ronald Reagan

President Ronald Reagan

The closest in terms of time and circumstances was President Ronald Reagan. Do you remember how bad things were in 1981? The U.S. was in the worst recession since the Great Depression, many aspects of which were much worse than the circumstances of the past four years. The unemployment rate was at 7.5% when Reagan came into office in January 1981 on its way to a post-war record high of 10.8% in December 1982. Average mortgage interest rates were over 13% and on their way to a high of 15.8% in November 1981. Rates were THAT high in order to combat the staggering inflation Jimmy Carter’s administration had failed to control: In 1980 it was 13.58%, 10.35% in 1981, and 6.16 in 1982. To put that in perspective only one year in the 30 years since has inflation crawled over 5%.

On top of the terrible economic news Reagan inherited a world where the threat of nuclear war was real.

English: President Reagan and General Secretar...

President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in the East Room of the White House. Français : Ronald Reagan et Mikhaïl Gorbatchev signant le Traité sur les forces nucléaires à portée intermédiaire dans la salle Est de la Maison Blanche.

The Soviet Union was occupying Afghanistan and still posing an ominous presence in Eastern Europe. OPEC was still only a few years old, we were only a few years from having lost the Vietnam War, and Iran had just emerged as a new and real enemy having only released the American hostages on the day Reagan took office.

So you think Obama had it tough?

Under Ronald Reagan by 1984 unemployment was down to 7.2% on its way to 5.3% at the end of Reagan’s term. Inflation was only 3.22% in 1983, 4.3% in 1984. The Soviet Union threat had been largely diminished and Reagan was soon to meet and begin peace negotiations with their leader Mikhail Gorbachev. And while those negotiations failed, so did the Soviet Union, driven into the ash heap of history thanks in large part to Reagan’s tough stance with them.

So you think Obama had it tough?

George W. Bush inherited the dot-com bust and recession and 9 months into office faced the tragedy of 9-11; a plot hatched and put into action long before he became President.

Richard Nixon inherited a war, the Vietnam War, and ended it. He also stepped into the most divided nation socially and politically than at any time since the Civil War.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, official portrait as Pre...

Dwight D. Eisenhower, official portrait as President.

Dwight D. Eisenhower inherited a war, the Korean War, and ended it. Also, 6 months into office Eisenhower had his own Recession to deal with. The Recession of 1953 lasted 10 months and saw the nations Gross-Domestic-Product fall to -2.6% at its worst.

There have been approximately 47 recessions in the United States since 1790. The most recent one may have been one of the worst. But so what. According to economists our current recovery is the slowest in U.S. history.

So you think Obama had it tough?

George Washington not only inherited a Presidency following a war, he inherited a presidency with no precedent. He was the first. He also ruled a country that as yet had no Bill of Rights, or Supreme Court.

Since Washington the United States has been in the following wars:

The War of 1812

The Mexican-American War

The Civil War

The Spanish-American War

World War I

World War II

The Korean War

The Vietnam War

The Persian Gulf War

and the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.

So you think Obama had it tough?

Never in my lifetime have I heard a supposed leader continually blame his predecessor to the degree President Obama and his supporters have blamed George Bush. And what saddens me is that they are teaching our country’s young people this is how it is supposed to be.

I reject that idea. America has been made by fine statesmen and leaders who didn’t whine about their circumstances, they worked to make them better. I pray this November Americans decide the whining has to stop and elect Mitt Romney to at least act like a leader.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Call for affordable video production.

Related articles

August 27, 2012
Categories: National Politics . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: Comments Off on So You Think Obama had it Tough, huh? What a Whiner!

Ryan the Best VP Candidate Since Kemp.

Paul Ryan

Paul Ryan 

The announcement that Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan will be Mitt Romney‘s running mate is a breath of fresh air for our country. Ryan has served in Congress since being elected by the district West of Milwaukee in 1998. His budgetary brilliance and political courage saw him rise fast. He is now Chairman of the House Budget Committee and almost singlehandedly wrote each of the past two Federal Budget’s passed by the lower chamber of Congress. Even if you are a Democrat you’ve got to be pleased to see a man of real gravitas named for our nation’s second highest office.

If you doubt me just look at recent VP’s and VP nominees.

Joe Biden? Puhleez!

English: Vice President Dick Cheney bids farew...

Vice President Dick Cheney and Vice President Joe Biden 

Sarah Palin? Seriously lacking, though not the imbecile Dems would have you believe.

John Edwards? Need I say more?

Joe Lieberman? Not a lot wrong with good ol’ Joe except that he was the Democrats VP nominee and isn’t really part of that political party. He endorsed the Republican Presidential nominee in 2008 and was re-elected Senator from his state of Connecticut as an Independent after losing the Democratic Primary in his last election.

Dick Cheney? Again, not a lot wrong with Cheney other than his complete and total incapability of showing any human warmth, making him the Democrats poster boy for mean old white men occupying the Republican party.

Al Gore? Back in 2000 I didn’t think Gore was that bad. Since losing the 2000 Presidential election in the closest election in U.S. Presidential election history he seems to have come unhinged and revealed that him as a President could very well have been a disaster.

Jack Kemp? Nothing at all wrong with Jack Kemp. A lot of us wish he’d been at the top of the ticket instead of Bob Dole in 1996.

English: Jack Kemp speaks at the National Pres...

Jack Kemp 

Dan Quayle? All you have to do is look at his incredibly non-existent accomplishments since leaving the Vice Presidency nearly 20 years ago to realize how lacking Quayle is as a man and/or leader.

Portrait of DoD Mr. J. Danforth Quayle, Vice P...

J. Danforth Quayle, Vice President of the United States 1989-1993

So out of the past eight VP’s and VP nominees only one, Kemp, is one we can ALL look back on with any sense of pride. And now there is Paul Ryan. And guess what. Paul Ryan was a Jack Kemp protege`. Before becoming a Congressman in January 1999 Ryan served as an aide to the former Buffalo, New York Congressman.

 

 

Thanks for visting. Comments are welcome.

August 11, 2012
Categories: National Politics . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: Comments Off on Ryan the Best VP Candidate Since Kemp.

The more I look, the More I like Mitt.

English: Governor Mitt Romney of MA

Our next President?

I thought (and wrote) that the Washington Republican caucuses for President of the United States would come and go this March 3rd with a GOP nomination fully secured for Mitt Romney and that my choice would be largely irrelevant. My home state rendered largely irrelevant again. And while I still think Romney will win the Republican nomination to take on Barrack Obama, I’m less sure. Newt Gingrich‘s win in South Carolina and his surge in national polls, irregardless of Florida, have me thinking I must take a stand, make a choice, and help my choice win.

While I’m not ALL there yet, I do like Mitt Romney more and more. I like Newt Gingrich too. And for the record I increasingly like Rick Santorum. But I’m probably going to vote for the former Massachusetts Governor.

Newt’s bombast is not a turn off for me the way it is for so many others. I was raised with a strong and often angry father, who yelled and was not afraid to show that he was upset. So I’m quite used to this character trait of Gingrich that turns off too many people and will probably be his undoing in the remaining nominating contests. I like Newt’s big ideas, and I like that he pisses off mainstream politicians of both parties. Wouldn’t you agree that going away from the politicians of Washington D.C. is not a negative?

But I said a couple of years ago that I’m not a one issue voter, but if I were, the one issue that is most important to me is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. So much of what challenges us as Americans today is completely wrapped up in this one issue: race relations, jobs, drugs, terrorism. We absolutely must secure our borders. As best I can tell Mitt Romney comes the closest to my views on this subject than any of the remaining candidates. For instance, I do agree with him that if you make it nearly impossible for illegals to get jobs, and you remove so many of the other magnets that draw these people to illegally cross our borders many will return to their own homes. Why wouldn’t they? Why would they stay if they can’t feed themselves or their families.

And as a side note, don’t believe Barrack Obama for a second when he positions himself as tough on this subject. In the State of the Union he claimed there were fewer illegal border crossings now than there had been in years. True or not that has nearly nothing to do with anything he or his administration have done. It has more to do with the economy. Why illegally come to the U.S. now? There are no jobs to be had (which further advances Romney’s assertion that no jobs means they will go home).

Secondly, I like Romney’s plans to waive the Capital Gains tax for those making under $200,000. This idea was panned when it was first introduced. Romney’s opponents claiming that such a tax is not paid by people making under $2ook, but instead by people like him. Wrong! I know. I’ve had to pay this tax and I didn’t like it one bit. I wrote a check to the Federal Government for $12,000 after selling my families first home, which we had moved from and kept as a rental for 7 years. The threat of having to pay it again was the primary reason we sold our second house after keeping it as a rental for nearly 3 years. It is a disincentive tax for me and for many other potential investors. I think less-so for those with higher incomes.

Eventually I’d like to see the high-end Capital Gains tax equal the high-end income tax rate. Because it is wrong for wealthy people to pay a much smaller rate than what the rest of us pay. And since they make a large majority of their income through capital gains rather than through salary, naturally they will pay the lower tax rate. When Ronald Reagan reformed taxes in 1986 he agreed with Democrats to make the Capital Gains tax rate 28%, equal to the highest income tax rate. Like Gingrich has said, I’d rather see the income tax lower and expanded to more people than raise the level of the Capital Gains tax rate.

Lastly, if you consider the only negatives on Romney are that he is wealthy and that he is a “flip-flopper”, you really seriously need to re-examine your priorities. After all when making an argument isn’t the idea to bring people to your way of thinking? And for Conservative Pro-Lifers hasn’t Mitt Romney come toward your way of thinking? Isn’t that a good thing?

So those are my reasons. My mind could change. But for now I’m with Mitt. What are your reasons?  Who do you support and why?

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

If you find this blog interesting I would be honored if you would share it. TY.

Related articles

January 30, 2012
Categories: National Politics, Washington State . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: Comments Off on The more I look, the More I like Mitt.

The fishermen, the hungry man, and the wise man.

Michael Schuett in a river

The Author hooking something

This is an essay written and originally posted on-line for a small select audience in May 2009. It’s timeliness remains appropriate.

 

 

A hungry man sat along side a vast river in the early evening sun. His clothes are old and worn. He watches the fishermen returning to the shores from a day of harvesting God’s plentiful waters.

The hungry man has no boat, and he doesn’t know the craft of fishing. He knows of no craft for which he can adequately feed himself or his family. For in his youth opportunities passed him by, as he passed them by. And though he caused no harm to anyone and though he wished no one any ill will he was left with a sad existence of hunger and despair.

One day a liberal fisherman who happened to be a Democrat saw the hungry man sitting along the shore. The liberal Democrat thought how sad that this man should sit along the shore hungry while all these many other fishermen brought forth God’s bounty from these blessed waters. The liberal Democrat correctly thought “there are plenty of fish to go around. Nobody should go hungry”. So the liberal Democrat surveyed the shoreline and spotted the conservative Republican unloading his boat. As usual the conservative Republican was bringing forth a hall of fish greater than that of anyone else along the shore; for the conservative Republican had toiled many years to earn what he had and to buy the best boat and to procure the finest nets, and to hire the best workers. So naturally he regularly brought in the most fish.

The liberal Democrat, wanting to help the hungry man, walked away from his own day’s catch and marched righteously to the dock of the conservative Republican and grabbed up an armful of fish, He then loudly proclaimed for all to hear “You have more than enough fish Mr. Conservative Republican. I am taking some of your fish to give to the hungry man there on the shore so that he will be hungry no more”,

Well, the conservative Republican was most upset. How could this liberal Democrat righteously and arrogantly come and take that which is rightfully mine. But seeing that the eyes of many others were now upon him, and fearing that he would somehow seem greedy to those who witnessed the liberal Democrat proclaiming that he would give the fish to the hungry man, the conservative Republican fisherman said nothing. Instead he harbored his ill feelings for having his possessions stolen from him. And he became embittered.

The liberal Democrat indeed did take the armful of fish to the hungry man. He then jumped up and down, waving his arms to attract the attention of anyone else along the shore who was not already watching him. He then said loudly, “Here Mr. Hungry man. I HAVE BROUGHT YOU FOOD. Through MY generosity you will now eat.” The liberal Democrat then walked away feeling quite good about himself, never to be seen again by the hungry man.

A week later the hungry man was again along the river’s banks hoping for the generosity which had been bestowed upon him the previous week to come his way again. Sadly, the liberal Democrat was nowhere to be seen and the hungry man feared he would go with no food. As the final fishermen completed their days work and indifferently walked by the hungry man to their homes, the hungry man spotted the conservative Republican. As was the norm the conservative Republican was one of the last fishermen to wrap up his days work for he again had a very large haul of fish and such bounty required hard work.

As he walked toward the hungry man in the direction of his home the conservative Republican noticed the hungry man shyly smile at him and extend his hand in the direction of the prosperous fisherman. Still bitter from having his hard-earned reward diminished the previous week by the liberal Democrat who took from his catch, the conservative Republican tersely said to the hungry man, “I will not give you any of my fish. Why is it that you don’t go fish for yourself instead of sitting here all day doing nothing? Why is it that you should be hungry again this week instead of fixing the situation with which you found yourself last week when the liberal Democratic fisherman took from me and gave to you?” The conservative Republican then walked away more embittered than before. The hungry man went hungry.

The next day the hungry man was again beside the river bank, for he had no place else to go. He had no trade. He had no family. A wise fisherman approached the hungry man and gave him one fish. Having witnessed the false generosity of the liberal Democrat and the embitterment of the conservative Republican the wise fisherman wanted to help the hungry man and boldly told the hungry man what he intended to do.

“You are hungry and that is unfortunate. But you are hungry because of the opportunities you failed to take advantage of in the past. So your hunger is of your own creation. If you wish to toil as you have in the past you will remain hungry. But if you wish to learn and work you will never be hungry again.” Never being hungry again did interest the hungry man so he humbly paid attention to the wise man.

The wise man continued. “This one fish I give you will only feed you for today. If you do not change your circumstance yourself, you will be hungry again tomorrow. This fish will give you sustenance and strength to carry on tomorrow. When the sun rises in the morning you will meet me at my boat and you will work hard for me all day. You will sweat in the hot sun; you may develop calluses on your hands from throwing and pulling on the nets; you may even get sea sick being that it will be your first time in the boat. At the end of the day you won’t feel very good. You’ll be tired. But you won’t be hungry, for you will take with you that which you reap from the river. And you will have learned how to fish.”

So the hungry man did work hard the next day. He sweated, blisters developed on his hands, and he vomited from having sea sickness. The wise man let the hungry man fish with him for the whole week and as the days passed it became easier for the hungry man. At the weeks conclusion the wise man told the hungry man “I can no longer take you on my boat for you have been taking place of another man who I must honor by keeping employed. But you now know how to fish.” The wise man’s final gesture to the hungry man was to give him an old worn fishing net.

“Take this and fish from shore. It’s not as nice a net as my others. You won’t catch as many fish from shore as from a boat. But if you start early and work late you’ll feed yourself, and you will eventually earn enough to buy a new better net, and in time your own boat. And you will catch more and more fish.” Then the wise man admonished the hungry man and said, “If you return to sitting along the banks hoping for the generosity of others you will again be hungry.”

The hungry man took the words of the wise man to heart for the foolishness of his youth had left him and now because of the wise man he knew how to fish. He started early and worked late and he prospered. In time he became wise. In time he taught another man to fish.

Comments are welcome. Thanks for visiting.

November 3, 2011
Categories: National Politics . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: Comments Off on The fishermen, the hungry man, and the wise man.