Conservative Musings

Our goal is to have intelligent discussion of the topics of the day. We realize everyone has their opinion and they should be allowed to express it in a discussion forum without calling each other names. We learn from discussion and not from name calling or argument.We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details

Thursday, January 31, 2019

Now Creating A Billion Dollar Company Is Not Important Because You Have To Start At The Bottom! While AOC's First Political Office Is A US Representative? Confused, Yes She Is!

Burn: Dana Loesch Just Wrecked Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Idiotic Tweet About Former Starbucks CEO

Matt Vespa

@mvespa1

Posted: Jan 31, 2019 6:10 AM

Burn: Dana Loesch Just Wrecked Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Idiotic Tweet About Former Starbucks CEO

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz might be running for president. If he does, it’ll be as an independent centrist. Needless to say, this will split the anti-Trump vote and very well could give Trump a second term. That’s why the political Left is hurling hate and vitriol at Schultz, who has also trashed Medicare for All, and other policies pushed by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Kamala Harris (D-CA), for being un-American. Harris recently said on a CNN town hall that she would gut private health insurance. Schultz thinks Tomahawk Liz’s agenda is nothing but full-blown socialism. The former coffee company executive also said that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s (D-NY) campaign to soak the rich at the tippy tops on the income bracket is what pushed him to think about a presidential run as an independent (via CNBC):

Billionaire former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is no fan of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal to slap a 70 percent marginal tax rate on income above $10 million.

In an interview Monday night, he cited her idea as one of the reasons he could never run for president as a Democrat. Schultz believes the party has moved too far left, and he doesn’t believe in their tax and spending priorities.

“I respect the Democratic Party. I no longer feel affiliated because I don’t know their views represent the majority of Americans. I don’t think we want a 70 percent income tax in America,” Schultz told CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin in New York.

And like clockwork, Ocasio-Corte responded saying, ‘Why don’t people ever tell billionaires who want to run for President that they need to “work their way up’ or that ‘maybe they should start with city council first’?’” on Twitter.

Uh, yeah, does she not know that Schultz is a self-made man who grew up in the projects?

So, why not run as a Democrat if he’s going to run? He’s been a Democrat his entire life. Well, the three pillars of the far left that will form the core of the 2020 Democratic Party agenda is just too whacko for him to stomach. We cannot afford free college, Medicare for All, and universal employment. So, you can see where the hate among the progressive Left rests with this man. He’s actually making good points, whilst setting the Left’s agenda on fire. At the same time, the National Rifle Association’s Dana Loesch took Ocasio-Cortez to the woodshed over her idiotic tweet about Schultz.

“Schultz grew up in the projects, was the first of his family to go to college, and turned a tiny coffee shop into a multi-billion dollar company. How much more should he ‘work his way up?’” Loesch tweeted.

Love him or hate him, Schultz is an American dream success story (via RCP):

Matt Vespa

MSNBC: Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is considering an Independent 2020 presidential bid, and he tells 'Morning Joe' why he doesn't believe what the Democratic Party stands for, why he sees himself as a legitimate Independent choice and what he really thinks about Elizabeth Warren.

Schultz responded to critics of his personal fortune and being a billionaire in America.

"I've also been criticized for being a billionaire," Schultz said Wednesday. "Let's talk about that. I'm self-made. I grew up in the project in Brooklyn, New York. I thought that was the American dream, the aspiration of America. You're going to criticize me for -- for being successful when in my company over the last 30 years, the only company in America that gave comprehensive health insurance, equity in the form of stock options, and free college tuition? And Elizabeth Warren wants to criticize me for being successful?"

Schultz is on a book tour, so we’ll know more about his presidential ambitions in due time. In the meantime, this is another example of Ocasio-Cortez getting wrecked. The Democrats are really working hard in becoming the anti-American Dream party. Happy Thursday, everyone.

Theatre Of The Absurd!

99 8 1 20 130

20 Comment

“Staring down the barrel of two assault weapons, there were 29 FBI agents in SWAT gear who had completely surrounded my home. There were 17 vehicles with their lights going, including two armored vehicles in the front yard. They had blocked off the entire street. They had pulled two amphibious units with frogmen up to the gate, to the back of the house. The entire back of the house was surrounded by agents, all of them brandishing sidearms and assault weapons pointed at my home.”

One would expect this to be a movie scene of law enforcement taking down notorious kingpin El Chapo or Pablo Escobar. But in the upside-down world of the Robert Mueller “witch hunt,” this was the real-life account of a 66-year-old man who does not own a gun — Roger Stone.

The eccentric ally of President Donald Trump has been in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s crosshairs for more than a year. His alleged crimes have zero to do with so-called “Russian Collusion.” The quirky Republican political consultant and strategist has a long and storied history that trails back to the Nixon Administration, and he has called himself a “dirty trickster,” a reference to Dwight Chapin who was allegedly hired to conduct a nefarious campaign against Democrats during the Watergate era. Stone is also well-known for his penchant for digging up “opposition research” against political opponents.

“They want to intimidate me. And they want to poison the jury pool. They treated me like El Chapo,” Stone reportedly said. “They used fewer men to take down Pablo Escobar or bin Laden.”

Stone is actually correct. Fewer agents and hardware were used to arrest all three of those Most Wanted enemies of the American people. Interestingly, a CNN camera crew was reportedly parked outside Stone’s home — not to imply Mueller’s band of “angry Democrats” are engaged in strategic leaks to the media.

“It is frustrating,” Stone said. “It’s a raw abuse of power in the fact that a CNN reporter was allowed to film my arrest when the street was sealed off and the fact that the CNN producer in question is a former assistant to James Comey at the FBI and formally worked for the FBI. His claim that he just had a hunch is not credible.”

The enormous resources brought to bear against an unarmed senior citizen who answered the door still in his pajamas begs the question: What crime did this man commit? Treason? Genocide?

Although Mueller may want everyday people to think Stone has direct ties to the Kremlin and dines with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin himself, nothing could be further from the truth. The chatty senior is charged with things such as lying to Congress and witness tampering based on bizarre statements, not physical threats. Among the colorful statements, Special Counsel Mueller indicted Stone on humorous quotes from popular movies such as “The Godfather” and “The Princess Bride” among others. America, you just can’t make this stuff up.

Among the more laughable reasons for the indictments was a “The Godfather Part II” reference Stone told an unidentified colleague they “should do a ‘Frank Pentangeli’” at the House Intelligence Committee “in order to avoid contradicting Stone’s testimony.” In the critically acclaimed Godfather franchise Frank “Frankie Five Angels” Pentangeli recants his FBI statements and claims the Corleone family is innocent of wrongdoing. He later commits suicide after an implied deal his family will be well cared for in return. He effective upends the government’s case.

“If you testify, you’re a fool …” Stone stated. “I could never get away with a certain (sic) my Fifth Amendment rights, but you can. I guarantee you, you are the one who gets indicted for perjury if you’re stupid enough to testify.”

In another portion of the indictment against Stone, the Mueller team claims he threatened radio show host Randy Credico and his dog. Mueller claims that the show host and Stone had a connection to WikiLeaks, which published hacked emails from the DNC. Stone went off on Credico who said he should cooperate with the witch hunt against President Trump.

“You are a rat. A stoolie. You backstab your friends — run your mouth my lawyers are dying. Rip you to shreds,” Stone said. He went on to reference Credico’s 13-year-old pooch, saying he’d “take that dog away from you. I am so ready. Let’s get it on. Prepare to die…”

The “prepare to die” statement is from a Princess Bride character seeking revenge on a six-fingered man who killed his father:

“My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!”

In the bizarre world of the Mueller witch hunt and Roger Stone, there is no truth, only fiction. At least Stone’s flare for movie quotes made us all laugh.

~ Conservative Zone

If Your Thinking Does Not Change After Reading This Article, You Are Heartless.

Ex-Abortionist Shares the Horrifying Story That Led Him To Quit After His 23rd Abortion

😱This is the easiest and most innovative way to beautify any room.💎 Get yours --> http://habitarte.co/world/us/ ✔ Indoors ✔ Outdoors ✔ Wet zones ✔ Ceilings 🇺🇸FREE SHIPPING ALL OVER 🇺🇸📦 http://habitarte.co/world/us/

Habitarte

Shop Now

Skip ad

Volume 0%

This video will resume in 9 seconds

BY JOE SAUNDERS
JANUARY 31, 2019 AT 6:49AM

For Dr. Paul Jarrett, it was the face that changed everything.

As a young physician in the 1970s, Jarrett’s first years in the medical field coincided with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

Like many at the time and now, he accepted the argument that abortion was just another “family planning” strategy and thought little of using the medical skills he had acquired to save human lives to actually destroy them instead.

But there came a day in 1974, when Jarrett came face to face with reality.

At a “Meet the Abortion Provider” conference in 1996, Jarrett described that day’s epiphany – how, after performing more than a score of operations that destroyed babies in their mothers’ wombs he finally faced the truth, literally.

“My 23rd abortion changed my mind about doing abortions forever,” Jarrett told his audience, according to a transcript available on PriestsforLife.org website.

“This patient was a little overweight and ultimately proved to be a little farther along than anticipated. This was not an uncommon mistake before ultrasound was readily available to confirm the gestational age.

“Initially, the abortion proceeded normally. The water broke, but then nothing more would come out. When I withdrew the curette, I saw that it was plugged up with the leg of the baby which had been torn off. I then changed techniques and used ring forceps to dismember the 13 or 14 week size baby. Inside the remains of the rib cage I found a tiny, beating heart. I was finally able to remove the head and looked squarely into the face of a human being — a human being that I had just killed. I turned to the scrub nurse standing next to me and said, ‘I’m sorry.’

“I knew then that abortion was wrong and I couldn’t be a part of it any longer. No one was critical of me for what I had done, nor for having stopped. But I had a lot of guilt about that abortion and had flashbacks to it from time to time. I sometimes dreamed about it…”

Do you expect the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade?

That was the physical reality that Jarrett faced in 1974 – that abortion is about stopping a human life at its most vulnerable moments.

But the abortion “debate” in the United States has a political reality as well, one that divorces words from their meaning, and twists them into any shape the liberal media and pro-abortion forces wish them to have.

One of the key words here is “health,” and how abortion proponents use it.

Under the terms of the expansive abortion law passed by the New York legislature and signed by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo last week – with the Orwellian name of the “Reproductive Health Act” – abortion is legalized “within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient’s life or health.” (Emphasis added.)

As Rebekah Baker, senior story editor at The Western Journal, pointed out in the video at the top of this post, “health is not defined in the bill, and that’s intentional.”

“So, health could really mean anything. It could mean emotional health, financial health. You could say, ‘If I have this baby, I’ll be under emotional distress,’ and that’s the reason.

“So when you hear people say, ‘It’s just the health of the mother that’s at play here, that’s code for ‘any reason.’”

And that really is the core of the issue here.

When then-Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the Roe v. Wade decision, he cited “penumbras” in the Bill of Rights that the court had previously found that guaranteed Americans the right to privacy.

And while the ruling did allow states to prohibit abortion after the point of viability, where a not-yet full term baby could survive outside the mother’s womb, it also allowed the “health” of the mother to be the determining factor.

“If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother,” Blackmun wrote.

New York state’s new abortion law carries that muddy logic to its murderous extreme.

For abortion supporters, “health” doesn’t mean a life-threatening condition could result if a pregnancy goes full term.

It doesn’t mean the woman carrying the child will suffer lifelong physical disability as the result.

It doesn’t mean anything other than that the lives of human beings being taken for any reason at all.

That was the reality Dr. Paul Jarrett faced that day in his Indiana hospital in 1974, when he confronted the torn body and tiny, beating heart of a baby he’d just aborted.

Can the country face that reality today?