Impeach Joe Biden now!!!

Let me start out by saying we don’t need an “official” impeachment inquiry.

And we don’t need all of these hearings and investigations into Joe Biden’s obvious corruptness.

We don’t need to tie this check to that account, or that money to this person.

We just really need to stop playing these legislative games, which it seems, only republicans feel obligated to observe.

All we have to do is bring attention to the unquestionable “high crimes and misdemeanors” conducted by Joseph R. Biden and his cast of treasonists, regarding the colossal mess he has created on our southern border, and go from there.

But, what exactly are “high crimes and misdemeanors?”

According to Madeleine Carlisle, for Time Magazine, reporting regarding the impending impeachment of then President Donald Trump at the time, “The House of Representatives voted in favor of two articles of impeachment — accusations of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress’s investigation into his relationship with Ukraine — that Democrats argue fall under the umbrella of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’”

“According to the U.S. Constitution, a President can be impeached for committing ‘Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ Treason and bribery are relatively clear, but what exactly are ‘high crimes and misdemeanors?’ The answer, it turns out, is complicated, and has been evolving for hundreds of years.”

“The phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ appears in Article II section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.”

“There are currently two major legal disputes over the definition of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ The first is whether or not something in that category actually has to be a crime. Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri School of Law and the author of High Crimes & Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump, tells TIME he believes it doesn’t. ‘The defenders of the impeached officer always argue, always, that a crime is required,’ he says. ‘And every time that misconception has to be knocked down again.’”

“He offers this example: ‘Let’s say the President were to wake up tomorrow morning and says, “All this impeachment stuff is kind of getting on my nerves. I think I’m going to go to Barbados for six months. Don’t call me, I’ll call you,” and just cuts off all contact and refuses to do his duty,’ Bowman theorizes. ‘That’s not a crime. It’s not violating a law. But could we impeach him? Of course we could — otherwise what’s the remedy? We have a country without a President.’”

“What’s the Constitutional history of the term?”

“The concept of impeachment was used by the British Parliament as early as 1376, as a legislative safeguard against overreach by the aristocracy, and the terms in question were part of the process early on.”

‘“In England a lot of the impeachment cases had relied on this language of “high crimes and misdemeanors” from the 1640s onward,’ Bernadette Meyler, a law professor at Stanford Law School, explains.”

“But the phrase didn’t have a set definition in British practice; it was used to describe whatever thing the person was being impeached for, according to Bowman. There were several things for which people were impeached during this era: ordinary crimes, treason, corruption, abuse of power, ordinary incompetence and misbehavior in relation to foreign policy.”

“When the framers of the U.S. Constitution realized they needed a way to remove executive officials who abused the nature of their positions, they decided to add a definition for an impeachable offense. Though many suggestions were made at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, by the end of the summer they’d winnowed it down to two examples: treason and bribery.”

“But George Mason of Virginia took issue with limiting it to the two definitions, arguing they were too narrow. At the same time the Constitution was being drafted, newspapers were covering the impeachment of a statesman named Warren Hastings for misconduct during his time the Governor General of India. Mason pointed out that under their current definition, Hasting wouldn’t be impeachable. Mason suggest they broaden the definition to include ‘maladministration,’ meaning mismanagement or ineffective governance. James Madison argued back that the word would be too broad, and make it so the President would be serving at the ‘pleasure of the Senate.’ He worried Senators could remove the President if they disliked a policy move.”

“George Mason then proposed including the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ instead, and that’s the term they settled on.”

“To understand what the framers thought ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ meant, Harvard Law professor Jennifer Taub points to Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper No. 65, in which he explains the impeachment process. ‘The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust,’ Hamilton wrote in 1788.”

Soooo, a “high crime” is just a term deemed to recognize something negative a person of power is capable of doing, which the typical person isn’t even in the position to do, or even capable of doing.

It’s a “high crime.”

It’s a special kind of crime.

So, again, we don’t need an “official” impeachment inquiry.

And we don’t need all of these hearings and investigations into Joe Biden’s obvious corruptness.

We don’t need to tie this check to that account, or that money to this person.

We just really need to stop playing these legislative games, which it seems, only republicans feel obligated to observe.

All we have to do is bring attention to the unquestionable “high crimes and misdemeanors” conducted by Joseph R. Biden and his cast of treasonists, and go from there.

This is exactly what Colorado Representative, Lauren Boebert, did on 06/13/2023, when she introduced House Resolution 503, to impeach Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

The latest action by the House, regarding this resolution, was to refer it to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.

Submitted articles of impeachment:

ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President of the United States “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. In his conduct as President of the United States—and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed—Joseph R. Biden, Jr., has abused the powers of the office of the President of the United States, in that:

Using the powers of his high office, President Biden has knowingly presided over an executive branch that has continuously, overtly, and consistently violated Federal immigration law by pursuing an aggressive, open-borders agenda by purposefully and knowingly releasing more than 2,000,000 illegal aliens into the interior of the United States without the intention or ability to ensure that they appear in immigration court to face asylum or deportation proceedings.

President Biden has intentionally facilitated a complete and total invasion at the southern border. President Biden ended the Migrant Protection Protocols to require aliens seeking asylum to remain in Mexico while being processed by the Department of Homeland Security. President Biden has closed Department of Homeland Security detention facilities and refused to cooperate with State and local law enforcement officials in securing the border. He has allowed illegal aliens to enter the United States as asylum seekers despite knowing they did not qualify for asylum. President Biden has pursued this open-border agenda purposefully and willfully, circumventing every safeguard, check, and balance required by law, resulting in mass illegal immigration into the United States, to the detriment of the American people.

President Biden, with such conduct, has demonstrated a failure to uphold Federal immigration law, violating his oath to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with the rule of law and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, President Biden, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

ARTICLE II: DERELICTION OF DUTY

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President of the United States “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. In his conduct as President of the United States—and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed—Joseph R. Biden, Jr., has neglected the constitutional duty of the office of the President of the United States, in that:

Neglecting the powers of his high office, President Biden has abandoned his duties to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed and upheld, by presiding over an executive branch that has continually, overtly, and consistently refused to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws and secure the southern border. President Biden has endangered the security of the United States and the health and safety of the American people. President Biden has caused a national security crisis and is endangering the lives of the American people.

President Biden has presided over the largest influx of illegal immigrants in American history, and as evidence of his dereliction, the deportation cases pursued by his administration are at historic lows. President Biden’s negligence of duty has resulted in the surrender of operational control of the border to the complete and total control of foreign, criminal cartels—putting the lives of American citizens in jeopardy. On President Biden’s watch, illegal aliens have been processed and released into the interior of the country under a mass system of parole, contrary to the clear terms of Federal immigration law. Utilizing the “CBP ONE” program, the executive branch will release nearly 40,000 illegal aliens per month into the United States. He has failed to uphold the mandatory detention and deportation provisions of immigration laws, resulting in the mass entry of inadmissible aliens and the continued presence of deportable aliens. Through this complete and total dereliction of duty and extreme absence in oversight of his own administration’s policies, President Biden has allowed more than 1,500,000 illegal immigrants to invade the southern border. On Joe Biden’s watch, illicit fentanyl has killed more than 100,000 American citizens. In fiscal year 2023, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol seized more than 9,000 pounds of fentanyl at the southern border.

In his failure to uphold the rule of law, President Biden has demonstrated that he will neglect his duty to execute the office to which he has been entrusted, violating his oath to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of the United States be faithfully executed.

Wherefore, President Biden, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

I believe that about sums it up.

If these aren’t the clearest, and most valid, reasons to impeach Joseph Biden, I really don’t know what would be.

Can someone please explain to me what the House Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement is doing with this referral?

Can someone please explain to me what our Speaker of the House is doing with this proposal?

Does anyone in Washington D.C. give a damn about our country anymore, save a handful of patriotic conservative House representatives?!

We don’t have time for political games anymore.

Who can reasonably argue against Biden’s “high crimes,” as laid out by Representative Boebert?

IMPEACH JOE BIDEN NOW!

IMPEACH JOE BIDEN NOW!!

IMPEACH JOE BIDEN NOW!!!

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please share them, and please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 20, 2023 0

LA-HOO-ZA-HERS!

It was a satisfying view, watching the House impeachment managers parade out of the senate, after having been denied an illegitimate impeachment…, again.

See ya, losers!

Don’t let the senate doors hit you in the backside on the way out!

What we saw from these legal imposters was the disregard of constitutional law, a continual stream of lies, the manipulation of senate and basic trial procedures, and the doctoring of evidence.

Yes…, the doctoring of evidence!

Are these democrats capable of doing anything above board, while playing by the rules?

It seems like that is too much to ask from them.

Yes…, they doctored evidence, which has been completely dismissed now.

Ya…, they tried manipulating evidence, but it didn’t work, so, …

And then there’s the whole witness debacle.

They hold a vote of the senators, to decide whether witnesses should be allowed, or not…, requested by the democrat House managers…, the senate votes in favor of allowing witnesses…, but then the democrat senators, the RINO republicans, and the House Congressional leadership Nancy Pelosi), realized the Pandora’s box they just opened, and who would be required to testify by the republicans…, like Nancy herself, Mitch McConnell, and the FBI, to tell us all what they knew ahead of the capitol riot, and why they chose not to address security concerns…, and they quickly brokered a deal with republicans to ignore the prior vote and dispense with having any witnesses called.

Ha!

What a joke?!

What an illegitimate circus this whole “trial” was!

Let’s take a moment to remember these House impeachment managers, and give them their due.

According to Clare Foran, Janie Boschma and Curt Merrill of CNN, “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi named nine Democrats to serve as impeachment managers, a role that called on them to make the case against [former President] Trump during the trial.”

“The group of Democrats included a number of top Pelosi allies. Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, an expert in constitutional law, served as the lead manager.”

Loser #1, “Jamie Raskin, lead manager, from Maryland’s 8th District. Serving in the House for a third term, since 2017. Committees: Oversight and Reform, Judiciary, Rules, House Administration, Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis. Pelosi chose Raskin to lead the nine impeachment managers. Raskin was a professor of constitutional law at American University for more than 25 years before taking office in the House in 2017. He also served as assistant attorney general of Massachusetts from 1987-89.”

So, Raskin was a professor of constitutional law for more than 25 years?!

Who’s constitution?

I mean, either he was studying some other country’s constitution, or he can’t read or understand English!

I wonder how many students he infected with his stupidness?

Loser #2, “Joaquin Castro, Texas’ 20th District. Serving in the House for a fifth term, since 2013. Committees: Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Education and Labor. Castro was a litigator in a private law practice before joining Congress in 2013. He chaired the Congressional Hispanic Caucus during the 116th Congress through 2020.”

Mr. Castro was the token Hispanic of the group.

Loser #3, “David Cicilline, Rhode Island’s 1st District. Serving in the House for a sixth term, since 2011. Committees: Judiciary, Foreign Affairs. Cicilline is a former public defender and former mayor of Providence. He chairs the antitrust subcommittee on the House Judiciary committee.”

Just your typical democrat turd who didn’t have anything else going on. Does Rhode Island have more than one district?

Loser #4, “Madeleine Dean, Pennsylvania’s 4th District, Serving in the House for a second term, since 2019. Committees: Judiciary, Financial Services. Dean is a former executive director of the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association and later started a three-woman law firm outside of Philadelphia.”

Token female of the group and typical democrat turd who didn’t have anything else going on. Also, supposedly knows something about the law.

Loser #5 “Diana DeGette, Colorado’s 1st District. Serving in the House for a 13th term, since 1997. Committees: Energy and Commerce, Natural Resources. Before her election to Congress, DeGette was an attorney in the Denver area. DeGette served in House leadership as a chief deputy whip for seven terms until 2019. She is the chair of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce committee.”

Second token female of the group and typical democrat turd who didn’t have anything else going on. 13 terms in Congress? Boy, the people in her district have been dumb for quite a long time.

Loser #6, “Ted Lieu, California’s 33rd District. Serving in the House for a fourth term, since 2015. Committees: Judiciary, Foreign Affairs. Lieu is a former active-duty officer in the US Air Force and a former prosecutor in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps. He still serves as a colonel in the US Air Force Reserves. Before his election to Congress, Lieu was also a judicial clerk for the US Court of Appeals. He is a co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.”

Mr. Lieu is the token Asian of the group. Did you ever wonder why there aren’t any funny shows about Asian families?

Loser #7, “Joe Neguse, Colorado’s 2nd District. Serving in the House for a second term, since 2019. Committees: Judiciary, Natural Resources, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. Neguse is a former litigator in a private practice. The son of immigrants from Eritrea, Neguse is the first Eritrean-American member of Congress and the first African-American to represent Colorado in the House. He co-chairs the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.”

Mr. Neguse is the token African American male. And where the hell is Eritrea? Never heard of it. I’m sure I haven’t been missing much.

Loser #8, “Stacey Plaskett, Virgin Islands’ At-Large District, Serving in the House for a fourth term, since 2015. Committees: Ways and Means, Budget, Agriculture. Before her election to Congress, Plaskett served as assistant district attorney for the Bronx District Attorney’s Office and as senior counsel at the Department of Justice. She was also general counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority.”

Ms. Plaskett is the group’s token African American female, and resident racist extraordinaire. I didn’t even know that the Virgin Islands’ At-Large District was a thing. Were all the rest of the available racist democrats, which would be all of them, busy that week?

And last, but certainly not least, loser #9, “Eric ‘shagwell’ Swalwell, California’s 15th District, Serving in the House for a fifth term, since 2013, Committees: Judiciary, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Homeland Security. Swalwell is a former prosecutor and former deputy district attorney for the Alameda County District Attorney in California. He is a co-chair of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee.”

Swalwell is also a former sex toy for a Chinese spy. Phang Phang got info for bang bang!

Let’s give them all a hand for being such a bunch of disingenuous, ignorant, pathetic losers!

Final score, President Trump 2, Democrat Nazis 0.

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

February 15, 2021 0

The U.S. Senate has 56 idiots!

Yes folks, the only thing we learned on the first day of Senate impeachment trial is that there are 56 idiots masquerading as senators in the United States Senate.

Marisa Schultz of Fox News reports that, “The Senate voted Tuesday to move ahead with the unprecedented impeachment trial of former President Trump after listening to nearly four hours of arguments on whether it is constitutional to try a president who is already out of office.”

“The vote was 56-44.”

So, 56 senators voted that they believe this impeachment is constitutional.

Please note, from Article 1, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS TRIED. THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHALL PRESIDE: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

“JUDGEMENT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT SHALL NOT EXTEND FURTHER THAN TO REMOVAL FROM OFFICE, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

Is the Chief Justice presiding over this impeachment?

No.

Is former President Trump THE PRESIDENT?

No.

Can former President Trump be removed from office?

No…, he is no longer in office.

So, quite simply…, is this impeachment constitutional?

No.

Obviously not.

It’s obvious the Chief Justice doesn’t think so, as he has declined to oversee the proceedings.

Yet, 56 of our esteemed senators decided these proceedings were legal and constitutional.

We obviously have 56 senators who cannot read English nor understand it.

This should actually disqualify them from holding the positions they do.

But there is another scenario.

Under this other scenario, these 56 senators, or at least most of them, understand this impeachment isn’t constitutional, but are choosing to proceed anyway, thus violating their own oaths of office and doing a complete disservice to the country.

“The six Republicans who joined with the Democrats on voting to continue the trial were Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.”

Could these six RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) do us all a favor and just switch parties?

If you’re all going to just stupidly vote along with the democrats, then why pretend to be something you’re not?

“Cassidy changed his vote from January when he was among the 45 Republicans who supported a motion by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., that declared the trial unconstitutional. Cassidy said he was persuaded by the House impeachment managers’ arguments on Tuesday.”

‘“If anyone disagrees with my vote and would like an explanation, I ask them to listen to the arguments presented by the House Managers and former President Trump’s lawyers,’ Cassidy said in a statement. ‘The House managers had much stronger constitutional arguments. The president’s team did not.’”

Excuse me, Senator Cassidy, but the vote wasn’t about who made a better presentation…, the vote was about whether the impeachment is constitutional or not!

We can all read the two paragraphs I provided here, and make that determination on our own, without needing to receive any additional arguments or presentations.

It’s like a juror voting not guilty, for a defendant who was unquestionably guilty, just because his lawyer did a better job in your opinion.

With all due respect senator…, that’s dumb.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

February 10, 2021 1

Impeach VP Kamala Harris!

Yes…, impeach Kamala Harris!

Why?

Kamala Harris is guilty of actually doing what the democrats are accusing former President Trump of doing…, inciting violence…, which, of course, former President Trump never did.

It’s a disturbing pattern of behavior by the democrats, which emulates the tactics used by their role-models, the Nazis.

“Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.“ — Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports, “A man who was twice bailed out of jail in separate cases by A FUND SUPPORTED BY VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS has been arrested again while under investigation for another possible case, Minnesota prosecutors said.”

“According to the Hennepin County Attorney’s office, Thomas Moseley, 29, had been arrested and released in cases involving allegations that include damaging a police precinct in August and rioting in December. He was arrested again on Jan. 27, just 22 days after his latest release. During that span, he is also suspected of trying to illegally purchase a gun, and officers are investigating that matter.”

“Moseley is facing three new felony counts of fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance while in possession of a firearm for allegedly having marijuana, cocaine and psilocyn mushrooms.”

“In the two previously mentioned cases, the new criminal complaint says, referring to property damage and gun possession charges, ‘THE DEFENDANT WAS ABLE TO SECURE UNCONDITIONAL RELEASE AFTER THE MINNESOTA FREEDOM FUND POSTED $5,000 CASH IN ADDITION TO A BOND that had been previously secured.’ In a third now-pending case, the Defendant was then charged with Riot in the Second Degree from an event that occurred on December 31, 2020.”

“The complaint goes on to say that in that case, THE MINNESOTA FREEDOM FUND AGAIN SECURED MOSELEY’S RELEASE, THIS TIME POSTING $60,000 BAIL.”

“The Minnesota Freedom Fund says it is ‘part of a larger movement to end the harms of money bail and jailing people for poverty.’ THE ORGANIZATION [THE MINNESOTA FREEDOM FUND] RECEIVED SUPPORT FROM THEN SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS IN JUNE.”

“If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota,” Harris tweeted.

@KamalaHarris

June 1, 2020

CAN YOU IMAGINE THE UPROAR IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD SUPPORTED A FUND TO BAIL OUT THE CAPITOL PROTESTERS?!

In a later video clip of Kamala Harris, while appearing on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, she said, “But they’re [referring to the rioters in Minneapolis] not going to stop. They’re not going to stop. They’re not. This is a movement. I’m telling you. They’re not going to stop, and everyone, beware. Because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before election day in November, and they are not going to stop after election day. And everyone should take note of that on both levels. That they’re not going to let up. And they should not, and we should not.”

Is this not blatantly endorsing civil unrest?

Is this not blatantly endorsing the violence against the police there and the destruction of public and private property?

Is this not blatantly inciting this violence?

If the democrats want to keep pursuing this bogus impeachment of former President Trump, don’t we also need to hold Kamala Harris accountable as well?

At least she is in office and eligible to be impeached under The Constitution!

“A FOX 9 report from August revealed that the organization bailed out individuals including Darnika Floyd, who was charged with second-degree murder after allegedly stabbing a friend to death, and Christopher Boswell, who is facing charges of sexual assault and kidnapping. The group put up $100,000 on behalf of Floyd and $350,000 on behalf of Boswell.”

Such a worthy cause.

“As for Moseley, his latest arrest stems from events arising from his apprehension in October, but he is also under investigation on suspicion that he allegedly used straw buyers to buy a semiautomatic weapon from a store on Jan. 7 and Jan. 12. He had just been released in one of his other cases on Jan. 5, jail records show.”

“On Oct. 15, 2020, Moseley was apprehended during a protest during a court appearance for the former officers involved in the police encounter that led to George Floyd’s death. Officers who saw Moseley in the courthouse knew that Moseley had already been suspected of damaging a police precinct on Aug. 15, and they arrested him for that. During the arrest, they allegedly found a gun in his waistband.”

“The new criminal complaint states that after the October arrest, police obtained a search warrant for Moseley’s truck after officers noticed the smell of marijuana and what appeared to be a gun case in the car. After performing a search, police recovered marijuana, cocaine and psilocyn mushrooms, as well as several handguns, a rifle, a shotgun, ammunition and other items including a hatchet, crowbar, gas mask and spray paint can. More weapons and marijuana were then found at Moseley’s home, the complaint says.”

“On Jan. 10, tests confirmed the nature of the drugs, and Moseley was arrested later in the month and bail was set at $250,000. According to Hennepin County Jail records, he remains in custody.”

C’mon everybody!

Let’s support our Vice President and all chip in to get this domestic terrorist out of jail!

Like I said, VP Kamala Harris should be impeached!

And while we’re at it, we may as well go ahead and impeach “Illegitimate Joe” right away for actually doing what they claimed President Trump did, a quid pro quo, with The Ukraine!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

February 3, 2021 1

Who’s guilty of inciting who?

The democrats and the establishment RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) are attempting to impeach President Trump…, again…, this time for “inciting violence,” which The President did not do.

The President encouraged the protesters there, last Wednesday, to go to the capitol and let their voices be heard, but there was no call for violence.

In fact, have you ever heard President Trump, or any republican for that matter, call for any kind of violence or personal attacks?

Ya…, me neither.

On the other hand, we have a documented history of many democrats doing exactly what they are accusing President Trump of doing.

Isn’t this becoming a pattern of behavior for the democrats?

Here are some (not all of the) examples of democrats calling for violence or physical confrontations against President Trump, people in his administration, and republican members of Congress.

Emma Colton, Social Media Manager for The Washington Examiner, reports, “Rep. Maxine Waters…, Sen. Cory Booker…, and Sen. Jon Tester, have all made comments suggesting violence or confrontations against Republicans. All of their Twitter accounts remain active, while the videos themselves are also circulating on the massive social media site.”

“Rep. Maxine Waters, for example, notably called for her supporters to harass Trump administration officials in public during a rally in 2018.’

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out, and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,’ Waters said.”

“Waters is far from alone.”

“New Jersey’s Booker [Senator Cory Booker] was also recorded in 2018 urging activists at the National Conference on Ending Homelessness to ‘get up in the face of some congresspeople.’”

‘“… that’s my call to action here. Please don’t just come here today and then go home,’ he said. ‘Go to the Hill today. Get up, and please get up in the face of some congresspeople.’”

Then in 2019…, Senator Jon Tester of Montana said on MSNBC, “I don’t think, even in states where Donald Trump won big, that it does you any good running away from Donald Trump. I think you need to go back and punch him in the face.”

“Then in 2020, House Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi said during a National Governors Association meeting that when a person is involved with politics, ‘you have to be ready to take a punch, and you have to be ready to throw a punch.’”

What is it with these democrats always wanting to punch somebody?

I mean, seriously?

“’Grabien’ [a multimedia marketplace company] founder Tom Elliott recently shared videos of Democrats making such comments on his Twitter account, and said that the violence seen at the Capitol last Wednesday would have occurred even if Trump had won in November, ‘Because Democrats have been endorsing violence as a political tactic throughout the entire Trump Administration.’”

We have also seen Senator Chuck Schumer get in on this action.

According to The Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal, “Democrats like to accuse President Trump of violating institutional democratic norms, and often he does with his rhetorical broadsides. But at least he’s never directly threatened the U.S. Supreme Court the way Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer did.”

“Speaking to a crowd on the Supreme Court steps, the leading Senate Democrat declared: ‘I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.’ He meant Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the newest Justices who were appointed by President Trump.”

“Mr. Schumer was speaking before abortion-rights activists as the Supreme Court considers whether to curtail the ability of abortion providers to sue on behalf of women seeking abortions—a doctrine known as third-party standing. Mr. Schumer, still addressing Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, added: ‘You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.’”

“The ‘whirlwind?’ ‘What hit you?’ We won’t go so far as to call that an incitement to violence, but it surely was a threat of political reprisal against the Justices if they don’t vote the way Mr. Schumer wants.”

The Wall Street Journal may not want to go that far, but I’ll call that an incitement of violence.

“The remarks [Schumer’s remarks] drew a rare and pointed public rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who said: ‘Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.’”

It sure seems like Chief Justice Roberts agrees with me!

Then we have our wonderful Vice-president elect, Kamala Harris.

Camille Caldera of USA TODAY reports, “Though largely peaceful, some of this summer’s protests have at times turned violent.”

Uh, I think you have backwards Ms. Caldera. You should have said, “Though largely violent, some of this summer’s protests have at times been peaceful.”

Regardless…, “A clip of Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris on an episode of ‘The Late Show with Stephen Colbert’ in June has resurfaced online.”

“Its title on YouTube claims: ‘Kamala Harris wants the riots to continue and not let up, not now not even after the election.’”

“The exchange between Harris and Colbert — which took place on June 17, a few weeks after George Floyd was killed by police in Minneapolis — referred to protests, not riots. The word ‘riot’ is not even mentioned in the 30-second exchange.”

That would be consistent with the democrats’ denial, at the time, that any riots were even occurring.

‘“I know there are protests still happening in major cities across the United States. I’m just not seeing the reporting on it that I had for the first few weeks,’ Colbert said.”

‘“That’s right,’ Harris replied. ‘But they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop, and this is a movement, I’m telling you.’”

‘“They’re not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they’re not gonna stop,’ she added. ‘They’re not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after Election Day.’”

‘“Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they’re not going to let up — and they should not. And we should not,’ she concluded.”

So, I get the impression you feel “they’re not gonna stop,” Kamala.

Saying they (the rioters, looters, arsonists, vandals, and those committing assaults and murder) “should not stop” is encouraging and inciting continued violence, is it not?

Again…, it sure sounds like it to me.

Now last, but certainly not least, we have the illegitimate President-elect himself, Joe Biden.

According to Veronica Stracqualursi, for CNN, ‘“They asked me would I like to debate this gentleman, and I said no. I said, if we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him,’ said Biden, getting laughter and applause from the crowd at the University of Miami.”

“Biden said Tuesday, ‘I’ve been in a lot of locker rooms my whole life. I’m a pretty damn good athlete.’”

Thanks for that inciteful assessment of yourself, Joe!

You just might be a better “athlete” that you are a politician!

In fact, I’m sure you are!

Anyway…

So, as we watch the democrats proceed with their hypocritical impeachment party, today, just remember who’s guilty of inciting who.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 13, 2021 0

Impeach Obama?! Adam Schiff said he would have done it?!

According to Brie Stimson of Fox News. “[Adam] Schiff says Obama would have been impeached if he asked Russia to investigate Mitt Romney.”

Excuse me, but I’m a little “verklempt” at the moment.

Okay, Adam…, I think we’ve had enough.

I mean…, granted…, none of us expect politicians to be complete honest all of the time…, but with you, these out and out lies are coming at us on a daily basis now!

And with a complicit media, no one calls you on anything, which seemingly gives your lies a level of credibility.

It’s really quite sad.

If anyone out there believes Adam Schiff and the democrats would have impeached President Barack Obama for ANY reason, please raise your hand.

Okay…, now if you have your hand raised, smack yourself in the face with it to wake yourself up!

If that didn’t help, smack yourself again.

In fact, keep smacking yourself until you come to your senses and realize I’m right.

This whole potential scenario was raised by an Impeachment question submitted by one of the Senators: “Would Obama hypothetically have had the authority to seek investigation of Romney’s son?”

“House manager Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Wednesday said former President Obama would have been impeached if he had done what President Trump has been charged with in the first article of impeachment.”

The Presidents defense team and “shifty” Schiff also “… referenced the time President Obama was caught on a hot mic in 2012 telling former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he would have more ‘flexibility’ after his re-election.”

And maybe I’m missing something…, but what about the whole issue of the Obama administration spying on the Trump campaign in 2015 and the Trump administration in 2016?

Just sayin’.

So please…, don’t even go there, Mr. Schiff.

We know you think your supporters are gullible enough to swallow what you’re feeding them…, and we know you think President Trump’s supporters are ignorant hillbillies…, but we’re not ignorant…, we just have our eyes wide open and we see you for what you are…, just a plain old socialist, anti-American, Trump hating liar.

WINNING!

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

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 white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 30, 2020 0

Impeachment! According to the memes.

As the fraudulent impeachment proceedings are hopefully winding down, I would like to share my collection of impeachment memes that I found particularly entertaining and/or particularly enlightening.

Just to recap:

“Meme” is pronounced [MEEM], and rhymes with “seem,” if you’re not familiar with the term.

A “meme” is a humorous image that is copied and enhanced (often with the addition of a message, joke, or saying) and spread rapidly by Internet users. I’m sure you saw them before you even knew there was a special name for them. I know I did.

Well, anyway…, bring on the memes!

Enjoy.

Who you callin’ crazy, cuckoo birds?!

Ha!

I hope you enjoyed this collection of memes!

Now let’s hope our senators put this impeachment hoax to rest and get back to taking care of The Peoples’ business.

“A day without laughter is a day wasted.” – Charlie Chaplin

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 30, 2020 2

Can these democrat presidential candidates, who are Senators, really be impartial jurors in the impeachment trial of President Trump?

At the start of the impeachment proceeding in The Senate, Chief Justice John Roberts administered an oath to all 100 senators as they swore to “do impartial justice” during President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.

Every senator solemnly swore “that in all things pertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United States, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”

I’m sorry…, but what a bunch of liars!

And they swore to GOD to top it off!

Be that as it may…, I’m specifically referring to the democrat senators who are currently presidential candidates…, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

By definition they are all opponents of President Trump, and they all have taken President Trump’s name in vain on a daily basis.

These three really expect us to believe they are able to “do impartial justice” where President Trump is concerned?

If these three had any honor or decency, they would recuse themselves from the impeachment trial and any Senate impeachment vote.

Wouldn’t that seem proper and reasonable?

The only problem being, we shouldn’t expect any of these three to behave properly or reasonably.

Not to mention the rest of the impeachment crazed democrats.

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 28, 2020 0

The democrats are clueless about impeachment, clueless about economics, and just clueless in general.

According to Julia Musto of Fox News, “House Democrats don’t care about the needs of the American people because their hatred for President Trump is blinding, conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said Friday.”

“Appearing on ‘Fox & Friends’ with hosts Pete Hegseth, Ainsley Earhardt, and Brian Kilmeade, Limbaugh said that Democrats have ‘sacrificed every bit of concern for the American people’ in their efforts to impeach the president.”

So, they really have sacrificed nothing!

“On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that Democrats will proceed with articles of impeachment against President Trump, declaring that the president’s conduct ‘leaves us no choice but to act.’”

Bawahaha!

You mean your hate for The President “leaves you no choice but to act.”

“Her announcement comes after a heated House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday featuring four law professors — most of them notably Democrat-invited witnesses who presented arguments for impeachment.”

“Pelosi claimed the facts are now ‘uncontested’ that Trump ‘abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of our national security’ by allegedly using aid as leverage to seek an investigation of Joe Biden and his son Hunter from Ukraine.

Excuse me, but Mrs. Pelosi wouldn’t recognize a fact if she tripped over it!

It’s also very hard to contest “facts” that don’t exist.

And the only “abuse of power” here is the congressional democrats trying to overturn the results of the 2016 election by promoting their impeachment fairytale…, which changes its focus every other day.

“However, the Trump administration and Republicans say the president did nothing wrong.”

“Trump accused Democrats of trying to impeach him over ‘NOTHING’ and warned that this impeachment could set a dangerous precedent in the future. Limbaugh said Democrats are motivated by one thing — hatred of Trump.”

‘“Democrats are wandering aimlessly and being propelled by one thing, you guys. You’re watching it. You watched it with the three so-called expert [Constitutional law] witnesses. We are watching pure, raw, hatred. They hate the man and they hate the people who elected him. They hate him because he beat them,’ Limbaugh explained.”

Actually, Rush, they don’t hate President Trump because he beat them. They hate President Trump because he won’t play along with their “swampy” game.

They hate him because he’s not part of “the political establishment club.”

They hate him because he’s putting America and her people first and not them.

They hate him because he’s costing them and their friends’ money.

They hate him because he’s after the truth and not covering up the truth.

“He [Rush Limbaugh] told the ‘Friends’ hosts that Democrats have ‘not a shred of evidence for any allegation they have made for three-and-a-half, going on four years’ and that Pelosi and her leadership are ‘almost sickeningly absorbed with destroying Donald Trump.’”

‘“Meanwhile, Trump keeps plugging away. The economy is roaring, its future looks great, wages are up, Trump’s job approval numbers are up…The Democrat Party does not care about the things the American people [care] about,’ he said.”

“On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the United States added a staggering 266,000 jobs in November with unemployment down to 3.5 percent — a 50-year low.”

Not to mention a 3.1% growth in wages.

That is huge.

Wages had been frozen or in decline through all of the Bush and Obama years.

The projected jobs number was 180,000, which many of these “expert” economic pundits seemed to scoff at.

I watched a couple of these “experts” who wanted to bet their co-pundits the actual number would be south of 150,000 and even lower that 90,000!

I watched others who decried an apparent weakness in the manufacturing sector, while feeling the employment numbers would come in low as well.

Then…,

BANG!

BOOM!

WHAMMO!

The numbers came out and 266,000 jobs were added in November!

266,000!

That 86,000 over the projected number!

That’s almost unheard of.

Have you ever heard the saying, “even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while?”

These “economic experts” who are employed by the fake news media must have multiple disabilities, because they can’t seem to find their own butt with both hands!

‘“If you had to give President Trump a legacy right now, [it’d be] peace and prosperity. What every voter goes to the voting booth and wants to achieve with their vote: peace and prosperity,’ said Limbaugh, applauding Trump for not starting any new wars.”

“Limbaugh said Democrats are turning to impeachment because they ‘have nothing to run on in 2020,’ given the economic success under the Trump administration.”

Well, that’s true as well, but they’re really just trying to discredit The President, while attempting to keep everyone’s attention off of all of the wrong-doing their deep state friends have been involved with, with special concern being paid to the Obama administration.

“Limbaugh cited stalling legislation including passing the United States-Mexico-Canada-Agreement (USMCA) and lowering prescription drug prices as further evidence that Democrats are not working on behalf of the American people.”

‘“They have abandoned any pretense of any care or concern of what the American people want,’ he said. ‘After Trump wins 2020, they’ll keep going like he’s John Gotti. So people better get ready for this because this isn’t going to end because the Democrats are nothing but pure raw hatred.’”

So apparently the democrats can’t “walk and chew gum at the same time,” like they said before this whole impeachment mess started.

WINNING!

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 10, 2019 2

Are the democrats ‘“whistling’ past the graveyard?”

If the democrats foolishly move the impeachment process on to the Senate for trial, here’s a list of the people I believe the republicans should call to testify and what I would like to ask them under oath, and at least get them on the record regarding some of these issues.

#1, former President, Barack Obama.

I admit this would be unprecedented and probably even a bit disrespectful…, but haven’t we moved past having to show any level of respect or decency towards an American president? Hey…, democrats…, what goes around comes around!

That being said…, lets get on with the questioning.

President Obama…, you assigned your Vice President, Joe Biden, to handle the whole Ukraine situation while you were The President, correct?

Did you believe you were aware of what Joe Biden was doing over there with Ukraine?

Knowing what you know now, do you still feel you were aware of what Mr. Biden was doing in The Ukraine?

We never heard any comments from you at the time, but were you okay with Joe Biden’s quid pro quo arrangement regarding Ukraine’s aid money and the removal of a prosecutor?

Are you in favor of the impeachment of President Trump?

Do you feel vice president Biden should have been impeached for his behavior regarding The Ukraine?

Were you aware that Joe’s son, Hunter, was hired to sit on the board of the Ukrainian gas company named Burisma?

We never heard any comments from you at the time, but were you okay with Joe Biden’s son serving on the board of a large Ukrainian company like that at the same time Mr. Biden was acting as your official emissary there?

Oh…, and while we have you here…, were you aware of Peter Strzok’s and Lisa Page’s “insurance plan” regarding Donald Trump?

And, Mr. Obama, were you aware that the FBI was spying on the Trump campaign?

With all of the concern about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, why didn’t you or your administration take any action to stop it, or at least warn the candidates of the possible interference?

In summation, were you aware at any time about anything that was going on in any part of your administration, Sir?

#2, former Vice President, Joe Biden.

Mr. Biden…, did you say, and I quote, “I said, I’m telling you [the Ukrainian leaders and representatives], you’re not getting the billion dollars [of financial aid from the U.S.]. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.’”

When you said, and I quote, “I said, I’m telling you [the Ukrainian leaders and representatives], you’re not getting the billion dollars [of financial aid from the U.S.]. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired,’” would you consider this a “quid pro quo” type of situation?

When you said, and I quote, “I said, I’m telling you [the Ukrainian leaders and representatives], you’re not getting the billion dollars [of financial aid from the U.S.]. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired,’” was President Obama aware of what you were threatening Ukraine with here?

Were you aware that this Ukrainian prosecutor was in the process of investigating the relationship between you, your son, and his paid board appointment at Burisma?

Wouldn’t it be fair to say you had a conflict of interest in this matter in this regard?

Is it true that your son, Hunter, accompanied you more than once on official trips on Air Force Two to The Ukraine and to China?

Do you recall how many times, exactly, Hunter conveniently combined his business trips with your official trips on Air Force Two?

Mr. Biden…, do you think your son, Hunter, profited from the fact that you, his father, was the vice president of the United States regarding his board appointments in the Ukraine and with China?

Do you think your son, Hunter, would have gotten these board appointments in the Ukraine and China if you, his father, wasn’t the vice president of the United States?

What do you think your feelings would have been if President Trump’s sons had the same good fortune as Hunter? Do you think you still would have thought there was “absolutely nothing wrong” with that situation if we were talking about the Trumps rather than the Bidens?

#3, son of former Vice President, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden.

Mr. Biden…, Hunter Biden that is…, between your dealings with your Chinese investment company and the Ukrainian gas company, how much money would you estimate you made?

Can you give us an example of something you feel you contributed to either of these companies during your time with them?

What were your qualifications, and why do you think these companies hired you, and actually hired John Kerry’s stepson as well?

Do you feel that it was appropriate to be employed by these foreign companies, while your father was conducting official business of The United States in these foreign countries?

Do you recall how many times, exactly, you conveniently combined your business trips with your father’s official trips on Air Force Two?

Did you ever reimburse the people of the United States for using Air Force Two as a means of business travel?

#4, Intelligence Committee Chairman, democrat congressman, Adam Schiff.

Mr. Schiff…, did you or your staff have any contact prior to your impeachment hearings with “the whistleblower?”

Mr. Schiff…, did you or your staff assist “the whistleblower” in crafting their complaint in any way?

Do you still insist that you did not know the identity of “the whistleblower at the time of the impeachment hearings?”

Do you now know the identity of “the whistleblower?”

#5, “The whistleblower.”

Did you have any political motivation for “blowing the whistle” on President Trump?

Do you believe you would have “blown the whistle” on President Obama if the situation would have been comparable back then?

Have you supported, worked for, of contributed to any prior democrat politicians?

If so, what politicians, what did you do for them, and how much did you contribute to them?

Prior to your “blowing of the whistle,” had you made any negative or critical statements, tweets, texts regarding President Trump?

If so, can you share any of these with us now, or do we have to wait until a review of your statements, tweets, texts regarding President Trump is made?

Did Congressman Schiff of his staff have any contact with you prior to the impeachment hearings?

Did Congressman Schiff or his staff assist you in crafting of your complaint in any way?

Was Congressman Schiff or his staff aware of your identity at the time of the impeachment hearings?”

Is Congressman Schiff or his staff aware of your identity now?”

#6, Speaker of the House, democrat congresswoman, Nancy Pelosi.

Speaker Pelosi, can you give us your definition of the word “hate?”

You have claimed that you don’t hate President Trump. Using your own definition, do you still claim to not hate President Trump?

Do you believe your actions regarding The President are consistent with your claim that you do not “hate” the President?

You have claimed that as a Catholic you can’t hate anyone, as it is against the Church’s doctrine, is that true?

Do you support abortion Mrs. Pelosi?

Are you aware that the Catholic Church does not support abortion?

Mrs. Pelosi…, you have claimed to have prayed for President Trump when speaking to the press on numerous occasions. How many times exactly have you said a prayer for President Trump?

So there you have my wish list…, and that’s really just for starters.

I could also add Hillary Clinton to the list, but she’s such an accomplished liar, there really would be no point in asking her anything.

Yes…, if the democrats are foolish enough to take this whole impeachment “hoax” to a Senate trial, I’ll be eagerly waiting for The President and the republicans to have their day in court.

WINNING!

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 10, 2019 0

Category: impeachment

Impeach Joe Biden now!!!

LA-HOO-ZA-HERS!

The U.S. Senate has 56 idiots!

Impeach VP Kamala Harris!

Who’s guilty of inciting who?

Impeach Obama?! Adam Schiff said he would have done it?!

Impeachment! According to the memes.

Can these democrat presidential candidates, who are Senators, really be impartial jurors in the impeachment trial of President Trump?

The democrats are clueless about impeachment, clueless about economics, and just clueless in general.

Are the democrats ‘“whistling’ past the graveyard?”

Subscribe to Blog via Email