In a Huffpost article back in May, Marcario was quoted saying, “we have to fight like hell to keep every inch of public land. I don’t have a lot of faith in politics and politicians right now.” Marcario is taking it as far as threatening to sue the Trump administration because of their scale back efforts of Obama’s land seizure. What Marcario is actually fighting for is the ability to tell the inhabitants of these western states that they will never have a say in what goes on with their own land.
A poll taken amongst residents of Utah showed that 60% were against Obama’s land grab. Only a mere 33% supported it. Marcario also stated that Patagonia would utilize profits to support pro-environmental candidates in states all over the West. This isn’t the first time that the Liberal company has supported and funded political matters. In 2016, the company spent more than $1 million for a get-out-the-vote campaign aimed to taken down Donald Trump. Patagonia has a dark history of being tied to human trafficking and child labor within their supply chain. Not really a company I would trust.
The Patagonia company hasn’t only displayed their Liberal ideologies through their environmentalism efforts, but it has also been reported that the company donated $60,000 to Planned Parenthood, an infamous abortion mill. The breakdown is as follows. Around $30,000 was donated by Patagonia to Planned Parenthood in 2012, then in 2013 the company donated another $25,000 to the baby killing clinic, and another $12,000 donation came in 2014.
Executive Director of Watchdog, Lance Wray, explained that Patagonia is a HUGE supporter of the Liberal agenda and will go to any means to try to take down President Trump. Wray stated, “Patagonia’s Rose Marcario is the perfect example of why conservatives are sick and tired of CEOs using their position to push a political agenda. Not only is she leading a lawsuit against the Trump administration, but her company provides financial support for the liberal agenda far beyond environmental activism.”
I couldn’t agree with Wray more, and it’s about time that CEOs shut their mouths and run their businesses rather than putting their noses into politics. When over half of the United States’ population voted for this man, Marcario’s company stands to lose a TON of business. She is essentially shooting herself in the foot.
It’s time that we come together as Americans to take down companies like Patagonia and prove to them that we will not stand for their sick and twisted Liberal agenda.
HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP
“Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance.
Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.”
Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump.
Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon.
“Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.”
Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday.
The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.”
But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why?
At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime.
“The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained:
For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code.
However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct.
A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.”
However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him.
. Obama’s Iran nuke deal
Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server
Obama IRS targets conservatives
Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters
Obamacare & Obama’s false promises
Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order
Operation Fast & Furious
5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl
‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session
Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval
Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law
Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act
Illegally conducting war against Libya
NSA: Spying on Americans
Muslim Brotherhood ties
Solyndra and the lost $535 million
Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress
Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers
Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’