Andrew McCabe may find a criminal indictment in his near future. It might be deserved, since information of his actions point toward crimes, and possible criminal conspiracy with others.
If he's indicted, the complaint will have the information many of those opposing Trump don't want in the headlines. This may derail the aspirations of the Democrats seeking office, and I'm betting they'll change their campaign strategies if McCabe is indicted.
Friday, September 7, 2018
Thursday, September 6, 2018
What If It's Part of the Plan?
Nike seems to have shot itself in the foot. People are mad, and some even burning their shoes. It appears as if the company lost its mind; or did it?
What if Nike is either part of a plan to bankrupt the company, or an insider is involved? With Nike manufacturing facilities overseas, the scrutiny of the operations is minimal at best. An unusual drop in production could be overlooked. That cuts costs to prepare for bankruptcy, and insiders could sell stock at the higher price.
With the failing Kaepernick ads in motion, the drastic drop in sales, and investors fleeing in numbers, the company could file for bankruptcy, have debts reduced to pennies on the dollars, and buying into the lower stock yield a profit.
Meanwhile, a new company, or revised company could be born. The manufacturing facilities exist, the yearning for an overpriced sneaker is still prevalent, and the public would be ignorant of most everything, since nobody really pays that much attention to stock prices, or major investors.
Time will tell how this turns out, but I wouldn't automatically think Nike is stupid, or honest.
What if Nike is either part of a plan to bankrupt the company, or an insider is involved? With Nike manufacturing facilities overseas, the scrutiny of the operations is minimal at best. An unusual drop in production could be overlooked. That cuts costs to prepare for bankruptcy, and insiders could sell stock at the higher price.
With the failing Kaepernick ads in motion, the drastic drop in sales, and investors fleeing in numbers, the company could file for bankruptcy, have debts reduced to pennies on the dollars, and buying into the lower stock yield a profit.
Meanwhile, a new company, or revised company could be born. The manufacturing facilities exist, the yearning for an overpriced sneaker is still prevalent, and the public would be ignorant of most everything, since nobody really pays that much attention to stock prices, or major investors.
Time will tell how this turns out, but I wouldn't automatically think Nike is stupid, or honest.
Sedition?
According to a New York Times anonymous editorial, there are members of the Trump administration intent on destroying the President's ability to perform his job. Regardless of opinion, or supposed good intents, if these people are not just fabricated sources for headlines, they're criminally involved with sedition.
Personally, I think the "source" is either a former member of the administration, or a composite fabrication of some former members of the administration. Who wrote the editorial is yet to be known, but they've admitted to a crime, and the FBI should pursue those involved.
The New York Times, by being involved with this, is also criminally conspiring in a crime of sedition. There is no good that can come from this article, and at best, it only causes discord. At worst, it is a deliberate effort to circumvent all rules of law to remove a sitting President. If foreign individuals are involved, the crime becomes treason.
I think this will cause an interesting turn of events. There are multiple agencies of the government involved in the safety of the President, and the nation. Included with these agencies is the military. I don't think the military will sit on its hands in a situation like this. When it becomes involved, agencies such as FBI will find they've lost the initiative. That may be a good thing, since the FBI has a dirty house, and refuses to clean it up.
Tine will tell how this turns out, but the blatant effort to destroy the President can't be ignored.
Personally, I think the "source" is either a former member of the administration, or a composite fabrication of some former members of the administration. Who wrote the editorial is yet to be known, but they've admitted to a crime, and the FBI should pursue those involved.
The New York Times, by being involved with this, is also criminally conspiring in a crime of sedition. There is no good that can come from this article, and at best, it only causes discord. At worst, it is a deliberate effort to circumvent all rules of law to remove a sitting President. If foreign individuals are involved, the crime becomes treason.
I think this will cause an interesting turn of events. There are multiple agencies of the government involved in the safety of the President, and the nation. Included with these agencies is the military. I don't think the military will sit on its hands in a situation like this. When it becomes involved, agencies such as FBI will find they've lost the initiative. That may be a good thing, since the FBI has a dirty house, and refuses to clean it up.
Tine will tell how this turns out, but the blatant effort to destroy the President can't be ignored.
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
He Looks Like a Pawn
Bob Woodward is releasing a book on the "dirt" on Trump. With certain members of the Trump administration stating some of the book is false, Woodward's newest effort is appearing more like tabloid trash. If so, Woodward has abandoned his ethics, and turned into a pawn for the Democrats/Communists.
Saturday, September 1, 2018
War and Civil Rights
In war, there are no civil rights. It's choreographed anarchy, with combatants and innocents. In the end, there are only winners and losers.
The founders realized the danger of invasion, the peril of unarmed citizens, and the Second Amendment was place in the Bill of Rights. Even with the inability of the government to protect, or in a situation were the rules of law were not followed by the government, the citizens were still able to protect the United States from enemies, both foreign and domestic.
With the intended effort to allow unbridled immigration, what some might consider a paradox was created. What happens to civil rights? Surely, we can't ignore civil rights? After all, that's what protects us from rogue government officials.
I don't consider it a paradox. I see it as some politicians forgetting the citizens are more important than any foreigner. The citizens come first, and anyone that ignores our borders is an invader, has not civil rights, and is dangerous to the United States. Invaders have no civil rights, and must be considered an enemy of the United States.
To some, my opinion may seem harsh, but where is the line between the sovereignty of the nation, and the hoards of those that only want the security of the United States, without following the laws created by the citizens? It should be the borders, but now it's the courts. That isn't where the deliberate efforts to destroy the United States should be fought.
So, without borders, how is a citizen to know if they're in danger from the invaders? The answer is always, which is a poor condition for US citizens. We've been infiltrated, the government ignores the danger, and it will eventually be up to the citizens to protect the country.
How does this all end? Will enough citizens vote to change the current laws? Will the effort to repel the invaders become a national directive? I don't know, but I do know every citizen should consider how they will protect there family. There is danger in the streets, and it's becoming worse.
We have invaders walking our streets with impunity, politicians that condone the invasion, and a tremendous amount of citizens refusing to recognize the perilous times. It's a war of ideas at this time. Only the foolish will ignore the possibility it may one day become a war of violence.
The founders realized the danger of invasion, the peril of unarmed citizens, and the Second Amendment was place in the Bill of Rights. Even with the inability of the government to protect, or in a situation were the rules of law were not followed by the government, the citizens were still able to protect the United States from enemies, both foreign and domestic.
With the intended effort to allow unbridled immigration, what some might consider a paradox was created. What happens to civil rights? Surely, we can't ignore civil rights? After all, that's what protects us from rogue government officials.
I don't consider it a paradox. I see it as some politicians forgetting the citizens are more important than any foreigner. The citizens come first, and anyone that ignores our borders is an invader, has not civil rights, and is dangerous to the United States. Invaders have no civil rights, and must be considered an enemy of the United States.
To some, my opinion may seem harsh, but where is the line between the sovereignty of the nation, and the hoards of those that only want the security of the United States, without following the laws created by the citizens? It should be the borders, but now it's the courts. That isn't where the deliberate efforts to destroy the United States should be fought.
So, without borders, how is a citizen to know if they're in danger from the invaders? The answer is always, which is a poor condition for US citizens. We've been infiltrated, the government ignores the danger, and it will eventually be up to the citizens to protect the country.
How does this all end? Will enough citizens vote to change the current laws? Will the effort to repel the invaders become a national directive? I don't know, but I do know every citizen should consider how they will protect there family. There is danger in the streets, and it's becoming worse.
We have invaders walking our streets with impunity, politicians that condone the invasion, and a tremendous amount of citizens refusing to recognize the perilous times. It's a war of ideas at this time. Only the foolish will ignore the possibility it may one day become a war of violence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)