The democrat presidential candidates talk like our economy is in a recession!  What’s the truth?   

During these first debates, I’ve heard many of these democrat presidential candidates make all kinds of wild claims about our economy.

“Many people are forced to work two and three jobs!”

“The middle-class is being left behind in this economy!”

“The only thing Trump ever points to about the economy is the stock market!  What good does that do the millions of people who don’t own stocks?”

Then we have the candidates who claim President Trump is taking credit for an economy launched by Barack Obama!

dems 12

So, what is the truth?

Well…, if these words are coming out of the mouths of democrat politicians, then “the truth” is really not an option!

dems 2

But don’t take my word for it.  Let’s look at the facts.

According to Suzanne O’Halloran, of FOX Business News, “Investors soaked up U.S. stocks during the month giving the Dow Jones Industrial Average its best June in 81 years while the S&P notched its best [month] in 64 years.”

Now it is true that many people don’t own stocks…, but many do too!

If you have a 401k, or you have a pension at work, you’re invested in the stock market.

And the markets are a fairly good indicator of how the economy is generally doing…, at least it has been in the past…, before these “fake newsers” have chosen to abandon the truth and promote their own liberal agenda.

“The last time the S&P 500 performed this well, Eisenhower was making the first presidential appearance to be seen on color television!”

Well that’s putting it in perspective!

Let’s take a look at the jobs picture now.

“According to the Labor Department, 5 million Americans work more than one job, a figure that hasn’t changed much in recent years and remains lower than it was during the 1990’s boom.”

Those 5 million people represent a lowly 2.2% of American workers…, hardly “many people,” as the democrats claim.

According to Heather Long of The Washington Post, “U.S. unemployment fell to 3.6 percent, the lowest [overall] since 1969.”

That’s the lowest in FIFTY years, in case you’re counting.

“The United States has more job openings than unemployed people, a situation some economists call “full employment.”

The unemployment rate for African Americans is at its lowest rate EVER!

The unemployment rate for Latino Americans is at its lowest rate EVER!

The unemployment rate for Asian Americans is at its lowest rate EVER!

Did I just say EVER?  EVER is a long time.

dems 9

How about women?  How are they doing?

According to Elaine Parker, of RealClear Politics, “Women Are Winning in the Trump Economy!”

“By almost every economic measure, women are flourishing in today’s economy. Female unemployment is currently at a 50-year low of 3.9 percent, less than half the rate it was as recently as President Obama’s second term.”

“The number of women-owned businesses has [also] grown by 114%, and… there are an estimated 11.6 million women-owned businesses, about 40 % of the total businesses in the country.”

Heather Long adds, “Low unemployment is forcing employers to raise pay and become more aggressive about hiring and training workers. Average hourly earnings rose 3.2% in the past year, well above inflation, and lower wage workers enjoyed some of the largest gains as companies scrambled to fill jobs and many states have raised their minimum wage.”

Now that’s how you raise the minimum wage…, not by passing some law.

Interest rates are still relatively low, and they’re expected to stay there for a while.

The price of gas is low…, and according to Javier Blas of Microsoft News, “America turned into a net oil exporter last week, breaking almost 75 years of continued dependence on foreign oil and marking a pivotal — even if likely brief — moment toward what U.S. President Donald Trump has branded as ‘energy independence.’”

“The shale revolution has transformed oil wildcatters into billionaires and the U.S. into the world’s largest petroleum producer, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia. The power of OPEC has been diminished, undercutting one of the major geopolitical forces of the last half century.”

“Oil historians said the country has been a net oil importer since the mid-1940s, when Harry Truman was in the White House.”

That’s over 75 years, just in case your counting.

Along with jobs and wages, most Americans saw their taxes go down, thanks to The President’s tax cuts.  The middle-class has definitely not been “left behind in this economy!”

And as far as Barack Obama being able to claim any credit for this economy…, I think I saw him wandering around, still searching for the “magic wand” that President Trump apparently found!

dems 15

So, we can see that by any measure, that President Trump’s economy is not only good, but in most cases historically good…, all-time good…, and just a couple of years ago, unimaginably good.

So there you have it.

Who appears to be lying?

Me, or our collection of democrat candidates, along with the rest of the democrats and the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media.”

If I wasn’t able to convince you after all of this that the democrats have a problem with the truth…, then you might be a liberal…, and I have this bridge I’m selling if you’re interested.

WINNING!

dems 3

dems 10

dems 6

dems 4

dems 1

dems 7

dems 5

dems 11

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

Is Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren kidding or is she just “speaking with a forked tongue…, again?”

First of all, I debated whether or not it was even worth commenting about Senator Warren, since she’s only polling like 1%-2% support among democrats in her run for president…, but in the end, I just couldn’t let her get away with her false narratives and “fake news” (lies).

According to David Knowles, an Editor at Yahoo News, “Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Tuesday she would take a “hard pass” on a Fox News invitation to hold a televised town hall event, saying she didn’t want to help the conservative network build credibility with advertisers.”

Ha!  Now that’s a true “holier than thou” liberal elite attitude if I ever saw one!

So having you on their network, Elizabeth…, a person who has defrauded the Native Americans in our country…, and our college education system…, that would help “build credibility with advertisers?”

warren 5

Hmmm.

I think you’re just mad at the Fox News Network for holding you accountable for your racial and cultural identification scandals…, while the rest of the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” looked the other way…, but I could be wrong.

warren 4

“Four of her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination — Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg and Kirsten Gillibrand — have agreed to the events, in which candidates take questions from moderators and voters. Sanders and Klobuchar have already appeared.”

‘“I love town halls. I’ve done more than 70 since January, and I’m glad to have a television audience be a part of them. Fox News has invited me to do a town hall, but I’m turning them down—here’s why…— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) May 14, 2019”

‘“Hate-for-profit works only if there’s profit, so Fox News balances a mix of bigotry, racism, and outright lies with enough legit journalism to make the claim to advertisers that it’s a reputable news outlet. It’s all about dragging in ad money—big ad money,’ Warren wrote.”

Wow!  Pocahontas’ level of confusion is quite impressive!

warren 3

Have any networks demonstrated a more “hate-for-profit” approach than CNN and MSNBC?

No.

Take the last 2 years of fake Russian collusion coverage as well as the “all negative Trump news all the time strategy.”

And which networks exactly have displayed more bigotry and racism than CNN and MSNBC?

No one…, hands down.

And which networks exactly have been caught in intentional lies more often than CNN and MSNBC?

Again…, no one.

So please, Senator Warren…, take your “fake news” story walking.

warren 2

warren 8

‘“But Fox News is struggling as more and more advertisers pull out of their hate-filled space. A Democratic town hall gives the Fox News sales team a way to tell potential sponsors it’s safe to buy ads on Fox—no harm to their brand or reputation (spoiler: It’s not).’”

Ha!  So “Fox News is struggling?”

Hasn’t Fox News been the #1 cable news in the ratings for like…, forever?

Hasn’t Fox News been destroying CNN and MSNBC by HUGE margins for like…, forever?

She should quit drinking that “firewater!”  Just more “fake news.”

warren 6

“In March, citing what it called the ‘inappropriate relationship between President Trump, his administration and Fox News,’ Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez announced that he would not allow Fox News to broadcast any of the party’s 2020 presidential primary debates.”

Oh…, so “Mr. Tolerance,” Tom Perez won’t “allow” Fox News to be a part of the 2020 democrat presidential primary debates?  Because Fox “has an inappropriate relationship” with President Trump?

What?

warren 10

In Perez’s mind, it’s an “inappropriate relationship” because Fox treats The President fairly.

The President responded by tweeting, “Democrats just blocked @FoxNews from holding a debate. Good, then I think I’ll do the same thing with the Fake News Networks and the Radical Left Democrats in the General Election debates! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 7, 2019”

Huh?  You may want to get together with your “biased, liberal propaganda, fakes news media” friends, Mr. Perez, and rethink your position about the debates.

warren 9

WINNING!

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

What the heck has happened to Venezuela?!  I’ll break it down for you.

Let’s look at a basic and condensed timeline, pertaining to Venezuela, for starters:

1992 – Venezuela becomes the 3rd richest country in the western hemisphere, behind only the United States and Canada.

1993 – President Carlos Andrés Pérez is impeached for embezzlement of public funds.

1998 – A collapse in confidence in the existing parties saw the election of former coup-involved career officer Hugo Chávez and the launch of the Bolivarian Revolution and socialism. The “Bolivarian Revolution” refers to a left-wing populist social movement and political process in Venezuela led by the late Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, who founded the Fifth Republic Movement in 1997 and the United Socialist Party of Venezuela in 2007.

1999 – The “revolution” began when a “new” Constitution for Venezuela was written.

2001 – Venezuela voted for a socialist president to address “income inequality.”

venezuela 8

2004 – Private healthcare is completely socialized.

2007 – All higher education becomes “free.”

2009 – The private ownership of guns is banned.

2012 – Bernie Sanders is quoted as saying, “Venezuelans are living the American dream better than Americans.”

venezuela 6

2014 – Government opposition leaders are imprisoned.

2016 – Food shortages become a widespread problem.

venezuela 13

2017 – The Venezuelan constitution and elections are suspended.

2018 – The country’s economic policies lead to extreme hyperinflation, with an inflation rate of 1,370,000% by the end of the year.

2019 – It is estimated that more than 3 million people have fled Venezuela in recent years.

2019 – Venezuelan protesters are attacked and killed by their own government in order to suppress their dissidence.

 

Venezuela’s socialist governments have been in power since 1999, taking over the country at a time when Venezuela had huge inequality.

But the socialist polices brought in which aimed to help the poor backfired, and made the situation even worse, of course.  Companies now controlled by the government failed, and price controls to make basic goods more affordable to the poor by capping prices meant that Venezuelan businesses no longer found it profitable to produce them.  Eventually, the government subsidies of all facets of the economy were unsustainable.

In only 27 years Venezuela has turned a “rags to riches” story into a “riches to rags” story.

venezuela 5

Like Margaret Thatcher, the former Britsh Prime Minister once said, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

Does any of the Venezuela story sound familiar today in America?

There certainly appear to be some similarities in the early stages happening here.

venezuela 2

We see an impeachment happy democrat Congress trying to overturn a presidential election.

We see many democrat politicians and democrat presidential candidates calling for a new constitution or drastic changes to our existing one.

venezuela 10

We constantly hear democrat politicians and democrat presidential candidates touting government solutions for “income inequality,” don’t we?

venezuela 9

We hear democrat politicians and democrat presidential candidates calling for a complete government takeover of our healthcare system.

Many democrat politicians and democrat presidential candidates are proposing “free” college.

And lastly, we hear many democrat politicians and democrat presidential candidates calling for radical changes to our gun laws, changes to the 2nd amendment or the complete removal of our right to bear arms.

The intentions of the American democrat party are apparent.

The democrats want to destroy America as we know it.

venezuela 3

The choice here is painfully clear.

If you want to follow in Venezuela’s footsteps…, elect democrats.

It’s as simple as that.

The only people who benefit from a socialist government are those in government.

venezuela 7

They apparently long for power that badly that they are willing to turn everyone elses life into a living hell for their own sakes.

They can only do this if we let them, however.

Remember…, the Venezuelan people voted for what they got.

In the end…, it’s their own fault.

And in the end…, we’ll choose our own fate as well.

venezuela 12

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

“Waaaah…, the election was stolen from me…, waaah!” – Hillary Clinton

According to Liam Quinn, a senior editor at Fox News, “Hillary Clinton suggests the election was ‘stolen’ from her, and other Dems could ‘suffer the same fate.’”

“Hillary Clinton suggested she had the 2016 election ‘stolen’ from her during the latest stop of her slumping speaking tour.”

hillary stolen 9

“Taking the stage with her husband Bill in Los Angeles Saturday night as part of the couple’s ‘Evening with the Clintons’ tour, the former Democrat presidential nominee told the crowd she has been warning potential candidates they could suffer the same fate.”

Ha!  An evening with the Clintons!?

More like an evening with a serial sex offender and his scheming, apologist, power hungry, wanna be president, partner in crime.

hillary stoen 10

‘“I think it’s also critical to understand that, as I’ve been telling candidates who have come to see me, you can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you,’ the former secretary of state said.”

Oh really?  Which candidates exactly have been coming to see you, Hillary?  I’m calling bull caca on that claim.

hillary stolen 2

“She’s hardly the only prominent Democrat claiming to have been wrongly kept out of office. On Friday, Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams again claimed she won the state’s 2018 gubernatorial race, despite losing to now-Gov. Brian Kemp.”

‘“I’m here to tell you a secret that makes Breitbart and [Fox News host] Tucker Carlson go crazy: We won,’ Abrams said, according to The Houston Chronicle. ‘I am not delusional. I know I am not the governor of Georgia — possibly yet.’”

No, Stacey, you’re not “delusional,” you’re just a bad loser, and a typical racist, liberal, socialist…, and you don’t know how to talk.

Bam!  Ya, I just said that!

“Abrams justified her refusal to accept the result of the election by calling Kemp ‘an architect of voter suppression that spent the last eight years knitting together a system of voter suppression that is unparalleled in America.’”

Ya…, how dare Governor Kemp attempt to suppress the votes of dead people, non-citizens, and fraudulent mail-in ballots!

The nerve of that guy!

“At the Clinton event, the crowd broke out in applause after Hillary Clinton delivered the ‘stolen’ election line, before she continued with a jab at President Trump.”

‘“And that, my friends, has nothing to do with the economy,’ she said.”

No it doesn’t, Hillary…, but “It’s the economy, stupid” was coined by your hubby’s own campaign strategist, James Carville, during his successful 1992 presidential campaign…, stupid!

“So part of our challenge is to understand what it will take to put together not only the popular vote but the Electoral College.”

Wow…, that’s a good idea Hillary!  Maybe you should have thought about that before the last election…, since, you know…, the winner is decided by which candidate gets the most Electoral College votes.  Duh!

“Clinton won the popular vote in her 2016 campaign against Trump, but lost the Electoral College — and with it, the race.”

She not only lost the Electoral College election, but she got creamed, 304 – 227.

It’s pretty hard to “steal” something from someone who never had the thing to begin with!

Fox News contributor Dan Bongino asked, “How can the woman whose team colluded with Russia during the 2016 campaign claim the election was ‘stolen’ from her’ [by the Russians]?”

hillary stolen 1

“The former first lady also questioned how Trump could still hold conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin following the release of the information in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report.”

Uhhh, maybe because Mueller found no proof of collusion between President Trump and “the Russians,” whatever or whoever “the Russians” means…, or haven’t you heard?

hillary stolen 6hillary stolen 4

“Mueller’s report ‘not only decisively proves, but goes chapter and verse about how the Russians — in the words of the report — conducted a sweeping and systemic interference in our election,’ she said, according to the Seattle Times. ‘And then you wake up and your president is spending an hour on the phone with Vladimir Putin, who was the mastermind of the interference and attack on our election.’”

I’ve said this before…, but Hillary has not read the Mueller report.  All she does is make up whatever narrative she wants and then attributes it to the report, which she know the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” won’t question or dispute.

hillary stolen 5

According to Michael F. Haverluck, of OneNewsNow.com, “The first Clinton event that was held at a Canadian hockey area – which houses nearly 20,000 seats – saw a mere 3,300 tickets sold, and more seat backs than Clinton fans were visible when the lights dimmed and the couple started talking.”

“For their May 19 show at The Forum in Inglewood, California, – which seats more than 17,000 – tickets usually priced at $77 are now going for $35, with $120 tickets discounted to $50, and $175 seats down to $72,” the U.K. daily informed [And tickets were all the way down to $6.50 just prior to the event!]. ‘Despite the site telling customers that ‘tickets are selling fast!’ with ‘limited time remaining,’ it appears that less than 450 discounted tickets have actually been sold.’”

I guess Hillary is about as popular now as she was during the election!

Unlike during the election, however, you can’t pay people to come to your events…, because, in this case, what would be the point?

In conclusion…, let’s be clear…, nothing was “stolen” from you Hillary.

hillary stolen 8

In reality…, you just plain lost…, and conversely…, we know that YOU were the one who cheated during the debates.  You were the one who had your party rig the primary election against Bernie Sanders.  YOU and your partners in crime were the ones who colluded with the Russians in an attempt to dig up dirt on and/or frame Donald Trump.  And YOU were and are the one who has obstructed justice at every turn.

And you just continue to lie misinform the people whenever you open your mouth.

LOCK HER UP!

LOCK HER UP!

LOCK HER UP!

Fox News’ Adam Shaw and Andrew O’Reilly also contributed to Liam Quinn’s report.

hillary stolen 11

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

Hillary Clinton says, “Anyone other than Trump would have been indicted for obstruction.”

No.

Oh no you didn’t!

Please tell me that those words did not come out of your lying, corrupt pie hole, Mrs. Clinton!

hillary summit 1

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, “These democrats just have NO shame.”

They will lie straight to your face and smile while they’re doing it.

Which she did while speaking at the TIME 100 Summit, in New York, Tuesday, April 23, 2019.

According to Alex Pappas for Fox News, “Hillary Clinton said Tuesday she believes Donald Trump would have been indicted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe if he weren’t president, though stopped short of calling for his impeachment.”

“Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president in 2016, argued during a Q&A session in New York that Mueller’s report ‘could not be clearer’ in making the case Trump tried to obstruct the Russia investigation — even though Mueller did not come to an explicit conclusion on that question.”

Well, I have to agree with you there Hillary.  It “could not be any clearer,” and it’s as clear as mud!

And again…, BELIEVE ME…, if Robert Mueller could have charged President Trump with ANYTHING…, and I mean ANYTHING…, he would have.

She continues by saying, ‘“I think there’s enough there that any other person who had engaged in those acts would certainly have been indicted, but because of the rule in the Justice Department that you can’t indict a sitting president, the whole matter of obstruction was very directly sent to the Congress.’”

I guess Hillary should know.  She is the queen of obstructing justice after all.

hillary summit 2

“Clinton, who was defeated by Trump in the election, said it’s too early to call for Trump’s impeachment.  She said she supports Congress investigating Mueller’s findings ‘based on evidence’ and without a ‘preordained conclusion.’”

We all know democrats never let a little thing like “evidence” get in the way of anything they want to promote.

And a “Preordained conclusion?”

Oh…, you mean like how you were preordained to win the democrat presidential nomination?  And then you and the DNC submarined poor old Bernie Sanders and all of his supporters?

Is that the kind of “preordained conclusion you’re referring to?”

Robert Mueller’s investigation was all backwards and illegitimate.  It was an investigation that was initiated based on a fabricated and a disingenuous document, and paid for by Hillary and the DNC no less.  It was also an investigation that knew what result it wanted before any evidence or proof of a crime was established.

Investigating people in America just for the sake of investigating them is not legal in America.  Typically we have to have an established reason, with supporting evidence, for doing so.

‘“I’m really of the mind that the Mueller report is part of the beginning,’ Clinton said. ‘It’s not the end.’”

Again, I find myself agreeing with Mrs. Clinton’s words but not the nature of her beliefs.

I also believe it is the “beginning,” but the beginning of getting to the bottom of who was behind the initiation of this “witch hunt” of an investigation.

I believe it is the “beginning,” but the beginning of getting to the bottom of who authorized the spying on of a US citizen and an opposition’s campaign.

I believe it is the “beginning,” but the beginning of getting to the bottom of who felt they could take the presidential election into their own hands and attempt to overturn the election results.

I believe it may also be the beginning of making Hillary herself pay for her numerous sins throughout the whole process.

I’ll keep you posted.

hillary summit 3

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Woof! Woof! Campaign finance laws…, all bark and no bite.

Let’s make no mistake about it…, politicians and political groups are ALL about the money.  And it doesn’t really matter what party they’re affiliated with.

When we hear all of this blustery talk regarding “campaign finance reform” every so often, their proposals are all just shams that pretend to actually do something, but in reality they have no effect on the flow of money at all.

In this case, were talking about the flow of what is referred to as “dark money.”

“Dark money” is referred to as “dark money” because the actual donors/investors remain comfortably and anonymously in the shadows.

dark money 1

What we have here is the discovery of an entire “dark money” network supporting liberal causes.

dark money 4

According to Adam Shaw for Fox News, “An expansive network of ‘shadowy’ dark money donors has [been uncovered which is] pumping millions into left-wing causes ranging from health care to climate change to abortion, all while flying well under the radar of public scrutiny, according to an explosive new report obtained by Fox News.”

“The report, by conservative watchdog Capital Research Center, describes a band of nonprofits operating under the banner of Washington-based philanthropy company Arabella Advisors. Those ‘pop up groups’ are housed in four Arabella-controlled ‘sister’ nonprofits, according to the report: The New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, Hopewell Fund and Windward Fund.”

‘“Together, these groups form an interlocking network of ‘dark money’ pop-up groups and other fiscally sponsored projects, all afloat in a half-billion-dollar ocean of cash,’ the report says. ‘The real puppeteer, though, is Arabella Advisors, which has managed to largely conceal its role in coordinating so much of the professional Left’s infrastructure under a mask of ‘philanthropy.’”

“The report says the ‘hydra-like’ network brought in $1.6 billion between 2013 and 2017 ‘to advance the political policies desired by wealthy left-wing interests,’ as the network’s revenues grew by 392 percent. The four Arabella-controlled ‘sister’ groups brought in $582 million in 2017 alone, according to the report. If the four groups were a single entity, it would make them the 22nd largest public charity in America, with higher revenues than the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Planned Parenthood or the Clinton Foundation.”

‘“The size and scope of the Arabella network of funds demonstrates far more ‘dark money’ exists on the left side of the political spectrum than has been previously admitted,’ the report says.”

Uh…, yeah…, especially since nothing is ever “admitted!”

dark money 5

The name “Arabella” means “yielding to prayer,” by the way.  Prayer to who or what would be my only question, as this is definitely not a Godly venture.

“Arabella’s website says the company was founded to ‘provide strategic guidance for effective philanthropy’ and is ‘dedicated to helping clients make a difference on the issues that matter most to them, from climate to women and girls, education, good food, and more.’ All told, the company represents clients with collective assets totaling more than $100 Billion.”

That’s $100 Billion with a “B!”

“But the report alleges the group blurs the line between philanthropy and political advocacy on issues such as ObamaCare, gun control, abortion and opposition to the confirmation of now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And it says that due to the financial arrangements and lack of donor disclosure, ‘it is impossible to know which organization subsidizes the various campaigns and political movements spawned by Arabella’s funds.’”

And that’s just the way they like it.

“The company was founded by Eric Kessler, who has worked both in the Clinton administration, where he managed conservation issues, and as a member of the Clinton Global Initiative. He also founded the New Venture Fund and is on the board of the Sixteen Thirty Fund.”

Well, there you have it.

That’s all we needed to know.

Arabella was founded by someone who has worked in the Clinton Administration and the Clinton Global Initiative.

A true pedigree in crookedness and underhandedness.

“Arabella did not respond to a request for comment from Fox News.”

Reeeeeally?!

“The report claims the group runs a network of ‘astroturf’ [referring to apparent grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions] activities including as many as 340 ‘pop up’ groups, which the report says are often little more than websites created to give the appearance of grassroots campaigns. It cites the organization’s activities pushing back against Republican efforts to repeal and replace ObamaCare as an example of its political activism.”

‘“At a glance, these groups, such as Save My Care and Protect Our Care, appeared to be impassioned examples of citizen activists defending ObamaCare,’ the report says. ‘In reality, neither “not-for-profit” advocacy group appears to have paid staff, held board meetings, or even owned so much as a pen.’”

“Consequently, the report says, the groups can be used to run ‘short-term, high intensity media campaigns targeting the news cycle’ such as during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. The report gave the example of activists, led by Demand Justice, waving glossy ‘Stop Kavanaugh’ signs in protest of the conservative nominee’s confirmation.”

“Demand Justice, led by former Hillary Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon, is very active on judicial issues, and is more than just a website.

There’s that “Clinton” reference again!

Liberal mega-donor George Soros and his Democracy Alliance group pop-up as well in association with the Sixteen Thirty Fund and the New Venture Fund.

dark money 3

It’s just one more bit of evidence which demonstrates the un-holiness of these alliances.

Stay thirsty (for the truth) my friends!

The truth is out there, and the truth shall set you free!

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

“Should a White Man Be the Face of the Democratic Party in 2020?” – A recent headline in The New York Times.

The democrat party and liberals in general continually like to label conservatives, and President Trump specifically, as racists (anti-people of color), misogynists (anti-women), along with having phobias concerning any other type of personal delineation you can name.

It must be a heavy burden, maintaining this “enlightedness” on a daily basis.

whitemales 6

But we all have our crosses to bear.

I would argue that the liberal “enlightedness” of 2019 and 2020 is racist (anti-white) and misandrous (anti-men).

Approximately 70% of the U.S. population is “white,” which equates to roughly 225 million people, with males specifically accounting for about 110 million of those.

On the surface, that would not seem to be a very wise position for the democrats to be coming from.

But being wise, fair, and tolerant is not their current M.O. (“modus operandi,” or “method of operating”).

Why does everything have to be viewed through the spectrum of race, gender, culture and sexual orientation with the left?

Shouldn’t their goal be to just nominate the best person “to be the face of the democrat party in 2020,” regardless of race, gender, culture and sexual orientation?

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

I think Dr. King would be disappointed that democrats and liberals were the ones standing in the way of that dream.

The comical thing, however, is that even with all of this “anti-white male” talk flying around the democrat party, their leading candidates right now are all white males!

Remember, however, in liberal land, what you say is more important than what you actually do.

whitemales 1

The top four I am referring to are: “Creepy Uncle” Joe Biden, “Crazy” Bernie Sanders, Beto “O’Dork” O’Rourke and Pete “Booty-gag” Buttigieg.

Candidates of a more “preferred” race and/or gender are Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillebrand, Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker, although they currently trail the four “white devils” by a significant amount in the polls.

whitemales 2

One of these “preferred” candidates will undoubtedly be chosen as the vice-presidential candidate to balance out the regrettable white male presidential candidate.

Howard Kurtz for Fox News adds, “… isn’t it also a discriminatory impulse to say perhaps a white male candidate should be denied the nomination on the grounds of race and sex?  Doesn’t that go against what we’ve always heard about wanting a color-blind and gender-neutral society?”

whitemales 4

The New York Times article piece says that “Democrats have seen the strong diversity in their field … become somewhat overshadowed by white male candidates.”  The article then asks, “What’s the bigger gamble: to nominate a white man and risk disappointing some of the party’s base, or nominate a minority candidate or a woman who might struggle to carry predominantly white swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that both Barack Obama and President Trump won?”

Hmmm…, so Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are considered “white swing states” by the liberals?  Interesting.  So even entire states have a racial determination in their eyes.

whitemales 7

Believe me my democrat friends…, there is no “gamble” for you no matter who you nominate.  Who else are the great confused liberal masses going to vote for?

President Trump!?

And those “unicorn” voters who identify as “independents” are even more confused than the confused liberal masses.

If any of these “independents” had an IQ higher than that of a jackass, the difference between President Trump and any of these democrat candidates should be readily apparent.  How anyone could be “undecided” going into the 2020 presidential election is beyond me.

whitemales 3

There is going to be well over a billion dollars spent on this election, trying to persuade about 1,000 “independent” idiots.

Everyone else is spoken for.

That’s about $1 million a vote by the way…, and they’ll probably end up voting for the Green Party candidate anyway!  Or not bother to vote at all because they still couldn’t make up their mind!

It’s a mad, mad, mad world.

whitemales 5

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

“All hail ‘Creepy Uncle’ Joe Biden!  America’s racial compass!”

“The bottom line is we have a lot to root out, but most of all the ‘systematic racism’ that most of us whites don’t like to acknowledge even exists,” Biden said at an event hosted by the Rev. Al Sharpton (another individual who portends to be a representative of our national racial conscience) and the National Action Network. “We don’t even consciously acknowledge it.  But it’s been built into every aspect of our system.”

He continued, “Because when your schools are substandard, when your houses are undervalued, when your car insurance costs more for no apparent reason, when poverty rates for black Americans is still twice that of white Americans…, there’s something we have to admit.  Not you, we, White America, has to admit there’s a still a systematic racism.  And it goes almost unnoticed by so many of us.”

So here we apparently have our newest “buzzword” to be included in the racial inequality narrative.

“Systematic racism.”

According to Jenée Desmond-Harris of “Vox” media, ‘“Systemic racism’ is used to talk about all of the policies and practices entrenched in established institutions that harm certain racial groups and help other racial groups.  ‘Systemic’ distinguishes what’s happening here from individual racism or overt discrimination, and refers to the way this operates in major parts of US society: the economy, politics, education, and more.”

So basically, “systematic racism” is a comprehensive excuse to explain away any kind of failure or any kind of negative situation being experienced by anyone other than white people…, that puts the blame on White people.

John Verhovek of Good Morning America added that, “Biden also expressed optimism that positive change is on its way, referencing the historic nature of the presidential inauguration he attended 10 years ago this weekend, when Barack Obama became the nation’s first African-American president.”

Yes, “Creepy Uncle” Joe, but it’s a damn shame that Barack Obama didn’t do much more than just become the nation’s first African-American president.  He categorically failed to positively move the needle for African-Americans in any regard, while alienating many of the Whites who helped get him elected. .

‘“There I was, it just hit me, standing, waiting for a black man to come 28 miles from Philadelphia to pick me up and take me on a 128-mile ride to be sworn in as president and vice president United States.  Don’t tell me, don’t tell me things can’t change!’ Biden said to applause.”

What this last quote means exactly I’m not sure.  But I can safely say that if Blacks were the majority race in this country, at the percentage that Whites have been, and are now, we would have never seen, and would never see, a White president.

If anyone feels they have an argument to be made against my claim, please email me and make your case.  I promise to publish all of your responses in a future blog.

Oh…, and “Creepy Uncle” Joe…, speak for yourself please.  None of us other “whiteys” have been in a position to do anything about your supposed “systematic racism…,” but you have!

You’ve been in politics since 1969 “Uncle Joe!  That’s 50 years!

No one should be in politics for 50 years.

You were in the U.S. Senate from 1972-2009.  That’s 37 years!

No one should be in in the U.S. Senate for 37 years.

You were the Vice President of the United States from 2009-2017.  That’s 8 years!

What exactly did YOU do to deal with YOUR perceived “systematic racism?”

I mean besides using it to help get you re-elected?

Just sayin’.

 

P.S. – Did you know that Joe Biden’s middle name is “Robinette?”  No comment…, just throwing that out there for what it’s worth.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

joe biden

 

 

Well, I guess we can add Senator Ted Kennedy to the list of treasonous liberals!

Watching “Life, Liberty and Levin” the other night, a TV show hosted by (The Great One) Mark Levin, I was floored by a letter his guest, Paul Kengor, discussed.

Paul Kengor is a political science professor at Grove City College, and the author of the book, “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism,” among others.

According to Sheila Fitzpatrick of the Wiley Online Library, “The opening of formerly closed and classified archives following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was a remarkable experience for historians…, our data base abruptly expanded in a quantum leap…”

This is how a KGB letter, dated May 14, 1983, written at the height of the Cold War, from the head of the KGB Viktor Chebrikov to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party, came to light.

Here is the translated letter:

Special Importance Committee on State Security of the USSR

14.05.1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV Moscow

Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party, Comrade Y.V. Andropov

Comrade Y.V. Andropov,

On 9-10 of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow.  The Senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.  Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous.  The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.  According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics.  He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity.  For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline.  The White House has portrayed this in the media as the “success of Reaganomics.”

Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan.  A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA.  This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic Party.  Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.

The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations.  These issues, according to the Senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.

The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States.  The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth.  In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistance to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.

However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak.  Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective.  Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda.  In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandstand, but subjectively propagandistic.  At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted.  Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.  Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people.  In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:

  1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues. If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit. Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V. Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield.  Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and published a book on the theme as well.)
  2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.

If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews.  Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow.  The Senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.

Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized.  They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military terms. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.  Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world.  Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutual understandings between peoples.

The Senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.

Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises.  Tunney remarked that the Senator wants to run for president in 1988.  At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future).

Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.

We await instructions.

President of the committee,

Viktor Chebrikov

 

Well what do you think about that?

Again…, can you imagine a letter like this being unearthed that implicated a Republican, and the blood bath that would ensue?

It’s so obvious that the “biased, liberal, fake news media” has been “running interference” for democrats for the last 60+ years now, and it continues today.

It sure sounds to me like Senator Kennedy wants to conspire with the Russian leader against the President of the United States at the time, Ronald Reagan.

I don’t know how you call this anything less than treason.

Kevin Mooney, a staff writer for Crosswalk.com at the time, seems to agree with me.  In October of 2006, he wrote, “A KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan’s foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.”

In his letter, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov offered the USSR General Secretary Yuri Andropov his interpretation of Kennedy’s offer.  Former U.S. Senator John Tunney, a democrat from California, and Kennedy’s law school roommate at the University of Virginia, had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov and other Soviet officials, Professor Kengor claimed in his book.

At one point after President Reagan left office, Tunney acknowledged that he had played the role of intermediary.  Tunney later told the London Times that he had made 15 separate trips to Moscow!

Kennedy’s attempt to partner with high-level Soviet officials never materialized, at least as far as we know.  Yuri Andropov died less than eight months receiving the letter about Kennedy from his KGB head, and it is not clear if the Soviet Communist Party chief ever acted on the Democrat senator’s proposal.  Andropov was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev.

“There’s a lot more to be found here,” Professor Kengor told Cybercast News Service. “This was a shocking revelation.”

Kevin Mooney, later an author at “The Daily Signal,” wrote in 2016, “Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy had “selfish political and ideological motives” when he made secret overtures to the Soviet Union’s spy agency during the Cold War to thwart then-President Ronald Reagan’s re-election…”

“In the 1980s, Kennedy was ‘terribly misguided’ and ‘a fool’ for seeing Reagan as a greater threat than either the leader of the Soviet Union or the head of its brutal secret police and intelligence agency,” political science professor and writer Paul Kengor told The Daily Signal.  “But what is clear from history is that Russian agents have worked with “dupes” such as Kennedy and other “naïve” Americans to influence U.S. policy to serve their own ends.”

So, what is the point of this article?

Here’s the point:

President Trump has been under a daily attack, for the better part of two years, from the “biased, liberal, fake news media” regarding some uncorroborated claims of collusion between President Trump and Russia.

In the case of Senator Kennedy, we have an actual letter describing his desires to conspire with a foreign government, and the “biased, liberal, fake news media” chose to, and chooses to, look the other way.

That’s the point.

Whose side are these guys on anyway?

Whoever’s side it is, it’s not “We the People’s” side, that’s for sure.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

ted kennedy

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑