Before I begin, let me say that I do support the idea of taxiing the poor. Why? Because according to the IRS, almost 50% of the lowest wage earners in America do not pay one red cent in federal income tax. I know, many will say they contribute by way of payroll taxes, but when you take into account earned income tax credits, they receive back from the government at least what they pay in payroll taxes, so even in that case they are paying nothing.
The reason this is not a good thing is that these are the same people who will vote on tax policy that will not affect them. They are constantly saying that people who make a good living should pay their fair share. Well, I think everyone should pay their fair share including those who consume most of the benefits from government programs. If you make $10 or $10 million a year you need to pay your fair share.This is why I support a manditory minimum tax.
I’m saying this because I want to show how Michael Bloomberg’s views on taxes are not only wrong but immoral, while maintaining my own position. There is a huge difference between us. With that said, let take a look at Bloomberg’s positions.
To put things in perspective, when Bloomberg was mayor of New York, he was called Nany Bloomberg. This nick name was given to him because of his penchant for controlling people’s lives. Therefore, taxing the poor is a good thing, because if we can tax them, we can control them and help them live longer and get an education. I know, weird right? He believes in taxing soda to keep poor people from drinking them. He supports raising taxes on everyday groceries so that poor people will have to pay more for necessities and therefore will have less money to spend on things he deems problematic. Hey, those are his beliefs not mine. The list goes on.
What I want you to see when watching the video below, is not just the pure arrogance of the man, but that he is not talking about taxing people’s income, he wants to tax their behaviors. That is what I find so abhorrent about his views. To get more on Bloomberg’s tax policy ideas, read this article from “Americans for Tax Reform.
As reported by CoffeeShop Weekly yesterday, Michael Bloomberg’s presidential campaign may have been over before it started. Video surfaced of the 9th richest man in the world stating earlier this year that he is too old to run for president and if he did, he would have to change everything he believes. Then in an interview with PBS’s Margaret Hoover, after announcing his candidacy, he praised China and said the Xi, China’s leader was not a dictator. Well the hits keep coming.
Bloomberg’s campaign is taking another blow, well in fact a few. According to former FEC officials, Bloomberg News may be violating campaign finance laws due to their editorial policy. In addition, polls from Politico Morning Consult and Gallup find him to be the most disliked candidate in the presidential race and the lease electable. Maybe Michael should reconsider this particular career path.
Is Bloomberg Done Before He Gets Started?
Michael Bloomberg, announced his run for the presidency as a democrat this week. He may be the 9th richest man in the world, but is he ready for a prime time presidential run? In the two videos below, Bloomberg says he is too old to run for president, that if he did run he would have to change everything he believes. Then in an interview with Margaret Hoover on PBS's "Firing Line', he heaps praises on China and says it is not a dictatorship, and that Xi can only do what his constituents allow him to do.
During the interview Hoover asked about what the United States can do to get India and Chna to be more responsible in reducing carbon emissions. The interaction went like this:
“China is doing a lot, India is doing some, but I think China is doing a lot,” Bloomberg responded. “Yes, they’re still building a lot of coal-fired power plants … but they’re now moving plants away from the cities.”
“The Communist Party wants to stay in power in China and they listen to the public,” Bloomberg continued. “When the public says ‘I can’t breathe the air,’ Xi Jinping is not a dictator, he has to satisfy his constituents or he’s not going to survive.”
“He’s not a dictator?” Hoover fired back.
“No,” Bloomberg responded. “He has a constituency to answer to.”
“He doesn’t have a vote. He doesn’t have a democracy. He’s not held accountable by voters,” Hoover pressed. “Is the check on him just a revolution?”
“You’re not going to have a revolution. No government survives without the will of the majority of its people,” Bloomberg responded as he became defensive. “Okay?”
David A. Cook CoffeeShop Weekly November 22, 2019
Boy did Chris Cuomo step in it this time. At the core of this stunt is the impeachment hearing testimony of David Holmes, the State Department official who said he heard President Trump’s conversation with Ambassador Soundland while sitting across the table having lunch. His testimony is seen by democrats as damaging to the President. Trump said he has very good hearing and he has never been able to over hear a conversation someone else was having across a table unless the call was on speaker. Cuomo tried to dispel Trump’s claim and it turned out to be a failure on the scale of Capone’s Vault.
According to the New York Post, Holmes said during his testimony on Thursday:
“Although Ambassador Sondland’s phone was not on speakerphone, I could hear the president’s voice through the earpiece of the phone,”
“I heard President Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine, and went on to state that President Zelensky ‘loves your a**.’ I then heard President Trump ask, ‘So, he’s gonna do the investigation?’ Ambassador Sondland replied that ‘he’s gonna do it,’ adding that President Zelensky will do ‘anything you ask him to,'” Holmes continued.
To prove the veracity of this claim, Cuomo. live on-air called his mother while sitting right next to Dana Bash. He leans over within inches of Bash (Cuomo says it was two feet away) and asks his mother to say hello. The look on Bash’s face is priceless. Even other panelist said they didn’t hear anything. In spit of it all Cuomo declares victory. Watch below:
Keep in mind that during lunch there were two people sitting right next to Sondland and they said they didn’t hear anything. But Holmes sitting across the table heard everything UNTIL the topic changed and then he could no longer hear the conversation. And people actually think this is a legitimate enquiry.
Andriy Derkach, an MP member of the Ukrainian Parliament, disclosed in a press conference today that Hunter Biden and his partners received $16.5 million dollars from Burisma that was stolen from the citizens of Ukraine. He also claims that Joe Biden became irritated at former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin and his criminal proceedings involving Burisma. This Lead to the December 7-8, 2015 visit by Joe Biden which was "devoted to the issue of removing Shokin as Prosecutor General and the affairs of Zlochevsky and Burisma." Below are the comments made by Derkach as reported by INTERFAX:
INTERFAX – Some $16.5 million received by Hunter Biden, the son of former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, as payment from Burisma was stolen from Ukrainian citizens, member of parliament Andriy Derkach has said.
Derkach said at a press conference at the Kyiv-based Interfax-Ukraine news agency that on November 14 the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) announced a new suspicion to the owner of Burisma, former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky.
“The PGO document once again confirms the data I had previously published on Burisma and international corruption. According to Zlochevsky’s suspicion notice, Biden and partners received their $16.5 million for their services to Burisma. Biden received funds not due to the successful activity of Burisma or for brilliant business decisions or recommendations. This is the money of Ukrainian citizens. The funds were obtained by criminal means. That’s what they say in the PGO,” Derkach said.
Derkach said the new suspicion notice to Zlochevsky was received by him from investigative journalists.
“According to the investigation, Zlochevsky was directly involved in the withdrawal of funds by the Yanukovych “family” (the Yanukovych criminal organization, according to the notice). They laundered the funds of Yanukovych through three companies in Latvia,” Derkach said.
Zlochevsky revealed the amount of money that was transferred to the representatives of Burisma Group, including Hunter Biden. According to the documents, about $16.5 million was transferred in favor of Hunter Biden, Aleksander Kwasniewski, Alan Apter, and Devon Archer.
According to Derkach, Ex-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin repeatedly contacted NABU Director Artem Sytnyk in the framework of criminal proceedings involving Burisma, but constantly received formal replies. The activities of Shokin, according to Derkach, irritated Joe Biden during his fifth visit to Kyiv in two years on December 7-8, 2015. The visit was devoted to the issue of removing Shokin as Prosecutor General and the affairs of Zlochevsky and Burisma.
"The instrument issued for pressure was the $1 billion credit guarantee that the United States should have provided to Ukraine: Biden himself acknowledged the pressure in his speech to the U.S. Foreign Relations Council in January 2018," Derkach said.
On November 11, Derkach said on his video blog that Head of the Specialized Anti-corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) Nazar Kholodnytsky launched an investigation into his allegations that the NABU had provided information to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. He also noted that from May 2014 until October 2015, Burisma transferred $4.817 million to Rosemont, and the latter transferred $871,000 to Hunter Biden.
CoffeeShop Weekly November 20, 2019
Ren Jander, reporting for the American Thinker stated that:
The president needs better legal counsel, as do the American people. The current impeachment illusion is based on a pandemic mirage. The nation has been hypnotized to believe that $391.5 million for Ukraine was held back, frozen, slow-walked, canceled, or subject to a nefarious threat by Trump. Wake up, America. Every penny of Ukraine monetary aid, the alleged carrot dangled before Zelensky, was spent on time, according to law, before, during, and after the July 25 call.
Kurt Volker, former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, and Tim Morrison, a top National Security Council official that was on the infamous July 25th phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukraine President Zelensky phone call, testified before the House intelligence committee on Tuesday. Both confirmed that there was no quid pro quo, no bribery, and no extortion. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) questioned them and in the process, not only shoed that there was no crime committed during the phone call but also added to the every growing evidence that Adam Schiff is not only dishonest, but tried to manipulate the testimony.
David A. Cook CoffeeShop Weekly November 15 2019
Former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch comitted purjury today first claiming that the Obama administration never brought up Burisma or Hunter Biden. but Later she stated that when she was prepping for her confirmation heraring, the Obama administration was concerned enough about the association between Burimsa and Hunter Biden that they peppered her with questions about it. She also stated in her opening statement that she had nothing to add to the discussion about the phone call between Trump and Zelensky, the discussion surrounding the phone call, or the discussion concerning the delay of military aid because she had no first hand knowledge of any of it. Not really sure why she was there other than to play the victim of big bad Trump who tweeted about her distastorous stint as ambassador while she was tesifying. Of course the democrats claim his tweet was an impeachable offense. How can people be so gulible to believe anything these jokers say.
What Amb Yovanovitch said earlier:— Tommy Pigott (@TCPigott) November 15, 2019
“although I have met former Vice President Biden several times over the course of our many years in government service, neither he nor the previous administration ever raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me” pic.twitter.com/AWhrogxFpN
Under direct questioning she admits that she knows of no bribery or criminal activity by the President.
During the hearing, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) yielded his time to Stefanik who started to question Yovanovitch before being cut off by Schiff.
Once again, Adam Schiff flat out REFUSES to let duly elected Members of Congress ask questions to the witness, simply because we are Republicans. His behavior is unacceptable and he continues to abuse his Chairmanship. Watch □□ pic.twitter.com/qm9Uj8tiHO— Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) November 15, 2019
Amanda Prestigiacomo of The Daily Wire is reporting that Republican New York Rep. Elise Stefanik was finally able to get her questioning in of former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch on Friday afternoon, after being repeatedly shut down from speaking by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA).
The effective questioning from Ms. Stefanik acted to underscore the fact that ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president, to emphasize the Biden family’s shady business dealings within Ukraine, and finally, to highlight President Donald Trump’s support of Ukraine, particularly in relation to the lack of support provided under the Obama administration.
David A. Cook CoffeeShop Weekly November 15, 2019
If you will notice, the new word to describe Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky is that he was attempting to “Bribe” him. Because he attempted to bribe him, President Trump must be impeached. Let’s forget about the fact that no bribery took place, that simply doesn’t matter. They use the word because the term is used when describing the constitutional statement concerning impeachment.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Article 2 Section 4
Therefore, you will begin to hear the word more often in the impeachment hearings currently taking place. There is a problem here, however. To be convicted of a crime the crime needs to be committed. And this is where the Breaking News comes in.
A statement from the Ukrainian Foreign Minister is throwing cold water on the bribery accusation. He stated in an interview that U.S. Ambassador Gordon Sondland never told them or even implied to them that there was a link between the delay in military aid and the investigations into Burisma Holdings where Hunter Biden sat on the Board of Directors or any other investigation. Minister Prystaiko on Thursday told journalists in Kyiv that:
“Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations. You should ask him. I do not recall any conversation with me as with foreign minister. It was not we, the Ukrainian officials (who were told this),”
“I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events.”
Where to begin? Schiff’s opening statement was just as bogus as this whole impeachment is. He told a falsehood about what the transcripts said. He stated that President Trump asked president Zelenski to investigate the Bidens as a favor which is not true. In fact, the Bidens were not mention until a page and a half after Trump mentioned a "favor". This man is incapable of telling the truth, which is why so many on the left love him.
Wednesday will mark the beginning of the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. Adam Schiff, the unethical and fraudulent Chairman of the Intelligence Committee will be the dictator over these proceedings. The Trump haters will be cheering him on along with all other American hating, constitutional loathing, justice despising, truth avoiding ingrates. These proceeding should disgust every American. This is a political assassination of a President, which started before his inauguration. Hate Trump or love him, how these proceedings are going forth should set you back on your heels.
When the House voted to start, rather continue their impeachment inquiry, the resolution included stipulations that the Republicans needed to seek permission from Schiff to call witnesses, or subpoena documents. Schiff has the right under the resolution to deny any and all witnesses requested by the Republicans as well as any documents they would like to use. But surely, he would never do such a thing since he his pronouncing that this will be a process with full transparency.
David A. Cook CoffeeShop Weekly November 8, 2019
Elizabeth Warren has finally come out with her plan to pay for her Medicaid-For-All (MFA) program. She is giving an estimate that her plan will cost $52 trillion over ten years. She is denying that the middle class will have to pay anything extra in taxes, because by raising tax rates on billionaires and implementing her wealth tax, the revenue the government will acquire will more than pay for her plan. There’s just one problem, its not true. When I say it is not true, I don’t mean her tax plan has miscalculated the cost or the amount of revenue she believes she can collect. I mean it is absolutely without question or argument untrue. It is an outright lie and she knows it.
To give a little Perspective on this let’s look at some numbers that we will use in evaluating Warren’s claims. In the last fiscal year, the U.S. government had $4.4 trillion in spending while bringing in $3.5 trillion of income (Included in the $3.5 trillion budget is $407 billion for Medicaid. For simplicity we are leaving those dollars in the budget as they do not undermine the conclusion of this article.). In Forbes list of the world's billionaires for 2019, the list included 2,153 billionaires with a total net wealth of $8.7 trillion. UBS/PwC found 585 billionaires in the United States worth $3.1 trillion combined. Wealth-X counted 680 U.S. billionaires worth $3.2 trillion combined. Total income for all of the U.S. population was $17.6 trillion. Forbes, USB/PwC, and Wealth-X numbers are estimates, albeit well calculated estimates. All other figures are taken from the US Census Bureau, Congressional Budget Office, the IRS and Statista.
So, what do these number mean? First let’s start with costs. Warren’s plan will cost, by her estimates, $5.2 trillion per year. As stated above, our current revenues equal $3.5 trillion with spending coming in at $4.4 trillion. This means that this one program alone will not only far exceed our current total revenues by $1.7 trillion (33%), it will exceed our current total spending by $800 billion (16%). Lizzie’s one program will cost $1.7 trillion more than all of the revenues brought into the U.S. treasury. People, including myself, have complained about our spending $800 billion more than we brought in. Her program more than doubles that amount, and we haven’t even gotten to her other proposals!
Now to her lie.
She is saying that by raising the tax rate on the billionaires and by subjecting them to her wealth tax, as unconstitutional as it may be, that she can pay for this program. Keep in mind she is saying this about some of her other “plans” as well. So, is this possible? No! We will take the highest numbers mentioned above to help Pocahontas out. In the U.S. there are 680 billionaires. They have a combined worth of $3.2 trillion dollars. I bet you can see the problem already. If her income tax increase and wealth tax on these 680 people combine for a 100% tax rate, she would only bring in $3.2 trillion, that’s $2 trillion short of funding her Medicaid-for-all. In other words, if she confiscated every penny from these 680 billionaires, she would only be able to fund this program for less than eight months. Let’s take it one step further. If she was able to take every single penny from all the billionaires in the world, she would only be able to fund this plan for 20 months.
Looking at this another way, would be looking at the total income of the U.S. population. In 2018, total income earned by the U.S. population was $17.6 trillion. If you consider the current level of spending of $4.4 trillion, plus the MFA at $5.2 trillion that totals $9.6 trillion. That is 55% of what the total population earned, not their taxable income. Now to be fair to Mrs. “I’ve got a plan”, if we deduct the $3.2 trillion that we got from taking all the wealth from U.S. billionaires, you still have $6.4 trillion to come up with. That means there would have to be, at the very least, an effective tax rate of 36% on every American worker. If your taxable income is $50,000 the government will take and keep $18,000 of it. And that is just calculating in one program. It is not taking into account free college tuition ($79B per year), free childcare ($2B per year for 12M children), school loan forgiveness ($1.6T), or any other program that the left is looking to put in place.
When we begin to contemplate these costs, we can readily see that there simply isn’t enough money to pay for this leftist utopia. So, you see, the idea of making the rich pay their fair share goes to the wayside when you consider the cost of these entitlement programs. You can take all the billionaire’s money and you will still get stuck with a huge tax increase on every working American. Of course, you can then say, “take all the millionaire’s money”, but eventually it will come down to taking all of your money. Besides, there are too many millionaire politicians for them to ever go after their own money.
Ladies and gentlemen, she knows this and is lying about it anyway. She is not a dumb person; in fact, she is very intelligent. This is the problem with all the leftist programs, they simply cannot be funded. They sell their version of nirvana to the masses and they tell them that the rich can pay for it. Fact is, they simply can’t. Truth be told, all of us can’t.
Coffee Shop Weekly has been making the case that the transcripts of the call between President Trump and President Zelensky revealed no quid pro quo. We stand by that position and believe that the over all impeachment process being brought against Trump is a politically motivated act of revenge for Trump beating Clinton in the 2016 election. Nothing more and nothing less.
With that said, according to legal scholars quid pro quo is a staple of presidential negotiation and cannot be assumed to be a high crime or misdemeanor. In addition, Trump's request for Ukraine to investigate possible corruption as it relates to both Joe and Hunter Biden and Burisma was also well within his legal right regardless if Joe Biden was a possible presidential opponent.
As reported by the Washington Times, the alleged quid pro quo transaction at the heart of House Democrats’ case against President Trump is closer to typical Oval Office deal-making than a high crime or misdemeanor worthy of impeachment, legal scholars say.
All this discussion of quid pro quo is really a smokescreen,” said Robert G. Natelson, a constitutional scholar with the Independence Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank in Denver. “Even if it were a quid pro quo, I think it is rather clearly neither a felony nor a misdemeanor.”
The Constitution’s criteria for impeachment — treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors — refer to felonies and serious breaches of fiduciary duty or the obligation to act in the best interest of the U.S., he said.
“It is not a breach of fiduciary duty for a president to make aid to another country conditional, and it is certainly not a breach of fiduciary duty for the president to ask the other country to investigate possible involvement in an American election,” Mr. Natelson said.
CoffeeShop Weekly November 7, 2019
As reported by Rick Moran for PJ Media, a rule that enabled doctors and nurses to refuse to perform abortions for religious reasons was tossed out by a federal judge because it was too "coercive." The judge invokes "discrimination," which apparently trumps religious liberty, and workers are coerced into performing abortions. I fear that this is the future of the republic as some "rights" will supersede others, leading to an erosion of individual liberties.
As reported by Matt Walsh at The Daily Wire, prominent abortionist Leroy Carhart dispels one of the biggest arguments of pro-choice minions when he basically says fetus is just another word for baby. He goes on to say that he has no problem killing a baby if it is in the mother's uterus. He goes on to say that when it comes to the health of the mother that could very well mean emotional health in which case depression could be just cause to kill their unborn child. When pressed about killing a fully formed viable baby he say that "the baby has no input in this". as far as the baby is concerned "It makes no difference if they're born or not."He lays all this out in a short clip less than one minute long.
In this clip, prominent abortionist Leroy Carhart:— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) November 5, 2019
-says depression qualifies as a “medical need” for late term abortion
-says it’s ok to kill babies anytime because to them “it makes no difference if theyre born or not”
-admits he “kills babies”
Live Action also posted a longer video on the serial killer doctor which is below. They show pictures of a birthday celebration in which one of his gifts is a sign that says “Even on my worst days, I’M KILLING IT.” Of course the knowing what we know about this man the words "Killing It" take on a whole new meaning. The video is worth the watch and Live Action's article is worth the read.
An employee at ABC News recorded a video of anchor Amy Robach talking on a hot mic to her producer revealing she had the story on sex offender and trafficker Jeffrey Epstein three years ago and her network killed her investigative report. "We had everything" she says. Pressure from "The Palace" referring to the royal family, and others caused ABC News to squash the story. According to Robaach they had damning evidence on Epstein, Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, and Prince Andrew. Robach also says she is 100% sure that Epstein was killed rather than committing suicide. "He made his living blackmailing people ... Yup, there were a lot of men in those planes. A lot of men who visited that island, a lot of powerful men who came into that apartment.”
Here is the release from Project Veritas:
Newly revealed footage leaked by an ABC insider has exposed how network executives rejected allegations against Jeffrey Epstein years ago, even though there was content regarding the merit of those claims in-hand.
Amy Robach, ‘Good Morning America’ Co-Host and Breaking News Anchor at ABC, explains how a witness came forward years ago with information pertaining to Epstein, but Disney-owned ABC News refused to air the material for years. Robach vents her anger in a “hot mic” moment with an off-camera producer, explaining that ABC quashed the story in it’s early stages. “I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts (Now Virginia Guiffre) [alleged Epstein victim]. We would not put it on the air. Um, first of all, I was told “Who’s Jeffrey Epstein. No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.”
She continues, “The Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways.”
Robach goes on to express she believes that Epstein was killed in prison saying, “So do I think he was killed? 100% Yes, I do…He made his whole living blackmailing people… Yup, there were a lot of men in those planes. A lot of men who visited that Island, a lot of powerful men who came into that apartment.”
Robach repeats a prophetic statement purportedly made by Attorney Brad Edwards “…[T]here will come a day when we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known,” and Disgustedly Robach states “I had it all three years ago.”
Project Veritas intends to continue its investigation into corruption in the Mainstream Media. We encourage that Brave insiders at these organizations come forward with any information they have, so that the public knows what is really going on within these media companies.
The left-wing selective fact checking group PolitiFacts is up to their old trick of deceiving the public about statements made by conservatives. Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley was given a “Mostly False” rating after she sent an email concerning the Green New Deal. She said candidates who supported it “touted everything from putting limits on red meat consumption, to promoting abortion in third world countries to control the population!” In order to make Haley look like she was promoting a false narrative, PolitiFacts, took a statement from Bernie Sanders, which Haley was referring to, and only reported part of the statement, omitting the portion of Sanders statement in which he touted abortion/birth control to mitigate population growth in third world nations. They then falsely claimed that Haley was saying that the Green New Deal was espousing abortion and birth control – which she clearly was not doing.