“We (I) Hold These Truths to be Self Evident”

The democrats don’t deal in truths. They deal in a series of power hungry charades.

There is a God.

And if God exists, so does Satan.

We see evidence of God and Satan around us every day.

An abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.

Those who promote abortions are puppets of the Devil.

Women who have had a change of heart about abortion deserve our love and prayers, and the knowledge that God and their unborn child has already forgiven them and loves them.

We are all human. We all have sinned. We all have fallen short of the glory of God.

“If you’re going through hell, just keep moving. You might get out before the Devil even knows you’re there.”

It is true that money (which equates to power) is the root of all evil.

Sex is not far behind money. Sexual deviancy (Pedophilia in particular) needs to be crushed and eradicated like the cultural cancer it is.   

Crude oil IS NOT a product of long dead dinosaurs and animals. It is a natural product of the Earth, and we will not run out of it.

Elite Climate alarmists don’t really think they can change our climate, while their foolish followers believe they can.   

Today’s democrats would have supported the British in The Revolutionary War.

Today’s democrats have more in common with Hitler and the Nazis than the allied countries that opposed him at the time.

John F. Kennedy’s assassination was orchestrated by elements within our own government, and then covered up by elements within our own government. Specifically the CIA, LBJ, and other cooperative establishment politicians and bureaucrats. And you can probably say that for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as well.  

Donald Trump winning the 2016 presidential election over Hillary Clinton caught the democrats completely off guard. They would not allow this scenario to happen again, by any means.  

Joe Biden did not legitimately win the 2020 presidential election.

The COVID-19 virus was developed in a Chinese lab, with the help of American funding, to be released into the world, by global fascist forces, when needed to mitigate a threat to their power and control, namely President Trump.  

Dogs are more loyal and loving than most people.

The United States has seen its last free and fair national election, relatively speaking, back in 2016.

Any government entity distinguished by three letters, four in some cases, (eg: DOJ, FBI, CIA, IRS) are corrupt and politically weaponized beyond your wildest imagination.  

Jeffrey Epstein DID NOT commit suicide, nor did Vince Foster. I’m sorry if some of you may need to look Vince Foster up.

Our government is currently run by unelected bureaucrats (The Swamp), not our elected representatives.

Any topic the corrupt DOJ or FBI does not want to talk about is described as “an ongoing investigation.”

It is unethical and immoral for our government to borrow money in order to give it away, especially to foreign countries, leaving the American taxpayers with the burden of paying this money back.  

People coming into our country illegally should not get preferential treatment over our military veterans and current citizens.

Our founding fathers meant the “free press” to watchdogs over our politicians and our government, not propagandist lapdogs.

Think about how ignorant and ill-informed the average American is, then understand that half of all Americans are more ignorant and ill-informed than that.

We should all support our police, but we all have also seen how quickly the police can flip from crime fighters and protectors to political mandate enforcers and adversaries of our Constitutional freedoms.

Humans, generally, don’t handle freedom well. That’s why, sadly, America was doomed from the start.

We should all learn how to speak Chinese.

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.

No justice for Ashli Babbitt.

Tucker Carlson, of Fox News, says, “America is now one nation with two very different justice systems.”

I would say this has been the case for quite a few years now!

“The people in power crack down on their enemies and give their allies a soft landing.”

“The ironically-named ‘Civil Rights Division’ of the Biden Justice [InJustice] Department announced Wednesday [4/14/21] there will be no charges brought against the man who shot and killed protester Ashli Babbitt in the Capitol back in January. No one who pays attention was surprised to hear this.”

If it was a black woman, or a liberal protester, who got shot by a white cop, there damn sure would be charges being brought, and lynch mobs forming, just like in Minnesota these days.  

Just sayin’.

Please see my prior blogs on this matter for a better frame of reference:

https://mrericksonrules.com/2021/01/12/the-storm-is-here/

https://mrericksonrules.com/2021/01/29/so-hows-that-investigation-going/

https://mrericksonrules.com/2021/03/03/let-me-tell-you-whats-up-with-the-jan-6-capitol-riot/

https://mrericksonrules.com/2021/03/17/wheres-the-justice-for-ashli-babbitt/

 “In cases like this, the benefit of the doubt usually does go to law enforcement, and as we’ve often said, we’re fine with that. It should. But still, in a free society, the rest of us have a right to know roughly what happened. In this case, who shot Ashli Babbitt and why?”

You forget, Tucker, that the new deep state “Gestapo” doesn’t have to answer to anybody. 

“No one will tell us. The Biden administration says the man who killed Babbitt is a Capitol Hill police officer, and he did the right thing. That’s all they’ve said.”

“Did the right thing?”

“Did the right thing” where?

Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Communist China, North Korea?

Does the United States fit in with this group now?

“We know that Ashli Babbitt was short, female [an Air Force veteran] and unarmed. There’s no evidence the officer who killed her gave any kind of verbal warming before he pulled the trigger. Is that standard procedure?”

No.

“We’d imagined the rules of engagement for federal agents limited the use of deadly force to situations where law enforcement has reason to believe they or the people around them are in imminent danger of being harmed. You can’t just shoot people without warning because they’re in the wrong place. That’s not allowed.”

“Except now, apparently, it is allowed.”

“When did these rules change?”

When the Democrat Nazi Party assumed power.

“And, once again, who exactly shot Ashli Babbitt? Journalists exist to ask questions like these, but they’re not.”

“The Washington Post wrote a long story about the DOJ’s [Ha! You the “J” in DOJ stands for justice?!] announcement in the case and never raised a single one of these questions. The Post didn’t name the shooter or even acknowledge that the government is withholding his name.” 

Why would the government be able to withhold his name?

How is the government able to withhold his name?

‘“Authorities determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove Babbitt’s civil rights were violated,’ the Post declared. That was it. The rest of the piece was a personal attack on Ashli Babbitt and her political views. She deserved to die. That was the point of the Washington Post story.”

Regardless of whether her civil rights were violated or not [they were], she was murdered by a Capitol police officer, and there’s plenty of evidence to prove that.

This officer has obviously been offered protection as long as he keeps his mouth shut, concerning the circumstances of their response to the protesters and the shooting itself.     

“How amazing to read something like this, especially now. Eleven hundred miles from Washington, in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, a police officer accidentally reached for her gun instead of a Taser and killed a man called Daunte Wright. It was a tragedy, as all shootings are. But we know that officer’s name because every news organization in the country printed it immediately. She has now resigned and is facing charges. Her mugshot is all over the Internet. Two nights ago, a mob showed up at her house, forcing her to flee.”

Quite a difference between how the two cases are being handled.  

Like Tucker said, “America is now one nation with two very different justice systems,” although neither is affording any justice.

“She’s not the only one. Last August, a police officer in Kenosha, Wisconsin shot a man called Jacob Blake. Remember that? Riots erupted immediately. Yesterday, that officer was cleared of all charges. When that story broke, NPR put that police officer’s name and photograph on the front of their website.”

“So that’s the standard, except in this case where they are still hiding the identity of the man who shot Ashli Babbitt.”

Ashli, of course, was white, a conservative, and a Trump supporter, deeming her unworthy of any rights or consideration at all…, just like a Jew back in the days of the Nazis and the Third Reich.  

“Sensing a theme here? The standards that big news organizations use to cover shootings depend entirely on the political views of the people who get shot. When The Washington Post doesn’t like the candidates you vote for, they suppress the details of the case. In the case of Ashli Babbitt, we’d know next to nothing about how she died, and we wouldn’t know anything if her shooting hadn’t been captured on video by people who don’t work at the Washington Post.” 

“One of those people is a video editor from Texas called Samuel Montyoa. Montoya was in the U.S. Capitol that day. Montoya doesn’t look much like a White supremacist, and he has no criminal history that we’re aware of. On Jan. 6, Samuel Montoya took what may be the clearest video of Ashli Babbitt’s death:

https://mssl.fwmrm.net/m/1/382114/77/9982029/21NFM134830H_ENT_MEZZ_HULU_2968404_578.mp4

“When you watch the video, there are a lot of things to notice. Ashli Babbitt had no weapon. She wasn’t attacking anyone. She couldn’t attack anyone, because she was climbing through a window at the moment she was shot. But what’s most striking is that several Capitol Hill police officers in paramilitary gear were standing directly behind Babbitt when she was killed. They were carrying what Joe Biden refers to as weapons of war — loaded AR-15s.”

In addition, as you watch the video, you can see, initially, there are three Capitol police officers standing between the group of protesters in the hallway and the doors.

At this point, everything seems to be relatively under control.  Then for some reason the three officers abandon their position in front of the doors and move behind the group, seemingly allowing, or even inviting, the protesters to have their way with the doors.

Then, you can see the officer on the other side of the doors, who is black, step out and shoot Ashli Babbitt.

The officer shoots at Ashli Babbitt, who is in a crowed of people, with the three other armed officers directly behind her!

The three officers behind Ashli apparently didn’t think she was a threat.

They didn’t lift a finger to stop what was going on.

And anyone of those three could have been very easily hit by the officer firing the shot as well.

Even if Ashli did manage to get through the doors, what was she going to do that justified her being killed?   

Tucker continues, “So, tell us again how Ashli Babbitt posed an imminent physical threat to anyone when she was shot. She didn’t. Samuel Montoya’s footage proves it. And we’re grateful we have that tape. If we didn’t, The New York Times would be telling us that Ashli Babbitt was beating people to death with a fire extinguisher when she was killed.  Thanks to Samuel Montoya, the New York Times can’t claim that.”

The story about the guy beating an officer with a fire extinguisher turned out to be made up propaganda as well.

“We’d love to have Montoya on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ to describe what he saw that day, but we can’t do that, because he’s in jail.”

“Yesterday, a large group of armed federal agents showed up at his house in Austin. They smashed Montoya’s front door, confiscated his electronic devices and threw him in jail.”

Sounds like the new democrat “Gestapo” to me!

“He’s behind bars right now.  What was his crime?” 

“Well, to find out, we read the Biden administration’s arrest warrant application. The FBI says it began investigating Montoya after one of his family members provided ‘proof that Montoya was physically inside the U.S. Capital near the shooting of a woman on January 6, 2021.’ To be clear, Montoya didn’t shoot the woman. He just happened to be nearby.”

So, the guy who took the video of the shooting is arrested, but the guy who actually did the shooting wasn’t?

“But wait a second. Weren’t there plenty of journalists inside the Capitol on Jan. 6? According to CNN, yes there were. CNN ran a piece telling us that, ‘Congressional reporters became the country’s eyes and ears as rioters stormed Capitol Hill.’ So why hasn’t the FBI arrested the people CNN identified in its story — the photographers from Getty, the political reporters from NBC, the congressional correspondents from CNN and the AP?”

Those people were all authorized to be there by the democrat “Gestapo,” silly! That’s why.  

“Well, that’s a good question. The FBI explains why in the warrant affidavit. ‘At times during the video, Montoya describes himself to others inside the Capitol Building as a “reporter” or “journalist” as he attempts to get through crowds.’ And yet, the FBI concludes, ‘The director of the Congressional press galleries within the Senate Press office did a name check on Samuel Christopher Montoya and confirmed that no one by that name has Congressional press credentials as an individual, or via any other organizations.’”

The nerve of this individual to “identify” himself as a reporter!!!

Form the firing squad immediately!

“So, that’s the standard. If the U.S. Congress’s credentialing office says that you’re not a journalist, you’re not a journalist. Did Samuel Montoya have strong personal political views? Apparently, he did. But you may have noticed that’s not so unusual in journalism right now. So why is journalist Samuel Montoya behind bars tonight? Well, he committed a crime? ‘Interfering with government business.’ In other words, trespassing. If this happened in Ukraine, what are the chances NBC News would describe Samuel Montoya as a ‘dissident journalist,’ and then describe Ashli Babbitt an ‘unarmed pro-democracy demonstrator?’ The chances are roughly 100%.”

“But this is America, and they’re not saying that. Instead they’re telling us that Ashli Babbitt deserved to die.”

“Joy Reid, of MSNBC, said, ‘She embraced conspiracy theories. Her name was Ashli Babbitt, 35 years old. She tweeted about Pizzagate. She tweeted thousands of tweets to Fox News hosts. She engaged [on] social media with the conspiracy news Internet site Info Wars. In 2020, she began to tweet with QAnon accounts and use QAnon hashtags.’”

“Oh, see, not a pro-democracy demonstrator, not an unarmed military veteran. So, she sent tweets to Fox News hosts. No problem. Ashli Babbitt got what she deserved.”

“What’s amazing is not simply the grotesque cruelty of assessments like that — a young women is shot to death and the media applaud — but what’s more amazing is the contrast between this and the coverage of other violence that’s now in progress.”

“Tuesday night, Biden voters burned a police building in Portland, Oregon. Did you know that? Probably not, it didn’t get much coverage.” 

“In the wake of Daunte Wright’s death Sunday, riots broke out all over the country, in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Minneapolis.”

“People were stealing stuff off store shelves, but don’t call it looting. It’s a peaceful demonstration. We know that because the mayor of Brooklyn Center, Mike Elliott, told us so. Tuesday night, Mayor Elliott tweeted a picture of himself on the scene.”

‘“Earlier this evening, I had the opportunity to go talk to these peaceful protesters,’ he wrote. ‘Our city is calm now.’”

“Here’s the funny thing: the mayor’s wearing a Kevlar helmet in the picture, which was not taken in Syria, but in his own town. That’s how peaceful it is. He was wearing a Kevlar helmet. Whatever else he is, Mike Elliott isn’t a very effective liar.”

“Laws have no meaning if they’re not applied equally. When they are not applied equally, they are not even laws. They’re just tools of political persecution. You don’t want to live in a country like that, even if the people you don’t like are the ones being persecuted.”

“Rashida Tlaib does want to live like that. Tlaib is a member of Congress, so her security is never in doubt. She’s protected by bodyguards, weapons of war, and now thousands of federal troops you’re paying for. She’s fine. But in your neighborhood, she’d like to see the police eliminated.”

‘“No more policing, incarceration, and militarization,’ Tlaib wrote on Twitter this week. ‘It can’t be reformed.’”

“Again, militarization is fine if the military is protecting her. She’s got federal troops. But not for you. You get mob rule. We’re not making this up, we’re not misquoting her. She’s demanding this in public as a member of Congress. Many are.”

“A panel of privileged people tell you to abolish the police. But they’re not saying actually abolish the police. We often claim they are, but listen very carefully. They say they want to abolish American policing as it currently exists. And that raises the question: how does policing currently exist?”

“Here’s how: local communities get to control it. So, the cops walking down your street, you hired them. That’s what Rashida Tlaib doesn’t like. That’s what offends MSNBC. The thing they hate about it is that they don’t control it. They can’t use your local police department to punish you for your political views. For that, they have to go to the FBI. It drives them crazy.” 

“Abolishing the police doesn’t mean getting rid of people with guns. It merely and specifically means stripping you of any control over local law enforcement. It’s just a more ambitious form of gun control, meant to disempower the citizenry, not protect them. When your police department answers to them, things will be very different.” 

“To get a sense of how different, take a look at what the Biden administration is doing in the state of Oregon. In the past few days, federal prosecutors have essentially dropped half a dozen federal felony cases that arose from those famous riots in Portland last summer. The feds reached non-prosecution agreements, which ensure that people who committed felonies will walk away with no criminal record of any kind.”

“What are the defendants in Oregon accused of doing? More than trespassing.”

“One of them, a woman called Alexandra Eutin, was charged with beating a Portland police officer in the head with a wooden shield while he was trying to make an arrest.”

“Now that’s bad, obviously. But it’s not quite as bad as, say, voting for Donald Trump, or walking around the Capitol building with a camera. Alexandra Eutin won’t have a criminal record by the end of this. Samuel Montoya could spend the next seven years in jail.”

“You see what’s going on. Two systems of justice — one for the allies of the people in charge, and a very different one for their enemies. These aren’t traditional liberals. They’re not calling for a peaceful utopia where no one uses violence. This isn’t the tradition of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. That was the old liberalism. We used to make fun of it, when it was going on. We could use a lot more of it now. This stuff is scary.”

Agreed.

This stuff is very scary.

Our country is being hijacked right before our eye by “the deep state,” a razor thin majority in the House of Representatives, no majority in the Senate, and an illegitimate president.  

Tucker Carlson’s statements here were adapted from his opening commentary on the April 14, 2021 edition of “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

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.

“Tis but thy name that is my enemy.” – Shakespeare

Yes…, your name, and your picture too!

According to Janine Puhak of Fox News, “Aunt Jemima is being rebranded with a new name and image, parent company Quaker Oats has announced, acknowledging that the face of the brand was ‘based on a racial stereotype.’”

“It was announced on Wednesday morning that the line of pancake mix, syrup, and other breakfast foods will be debut a new look as part of Quaker’s push to ‘to make progress toward racial equality.’”

‘“We recognize Aunt Jemima’s origins are based on a racial stereotype,’ said Kristin Kroepfl, vice president and chief marketing officer of Quaker Foods North America, in a statement shared with Fox News. ‘As we work to make progress toward racial equality through several initiatives, we also must take a hard look at our portfolio of brands and ensure they reflect our values and meet our consumers’ expectations.’”

aauntj 5

aauntj 4

“Kroepfl added that while the parent company has tried to ‘update’ the Aunt Jemima brand through the years to be ‘appropriate and respectful,’ the time has come to scrap the current product in favor of a complete makeover.”

aauntj 6

‘“We acknowledge the brand has not progressed enough to appropriately reflect the confidence, warmth and dignity that we would like it to stand for today,’ Kroepfl stressed. ‘We are starting by removing the image and changing the name. We will continue the conversation by gathering diverse perspectives from both our organization and the Black community to further evolve the brand and make it one everyone can be proud to have in their pantry.’”

So, you want to “appropriately reflect the Black community?”

Maybe the new “Aunt Jemima” should be a rioter with a mask on?

Maybe on the back of the box, you could include instructions for making Molotov cocktails?!

“The 130-year-old breakfast brand’s logo features a black woman named Aunt Jemima.  The logo has evolved over time, with Quaker dropping Aunt Jemima’s kerchief in recent years, per NBC News.”

St. Joseph Gazette editor Chris L. Rutt and his friend Charles G. Underwood developed the pancake mix 1888 and later appropriated the “Aunt Jemima” name and image from lithographed posters seen at a vaudeville house, there, in St. Joseph, Missouri.

The inspiration for “Aunt Jemima” was Billy Kersands’ American-style minstrelsy/vaudeville song “Old Aunt Jemima”, written in 1875. The “Aunt Jemima” character was prominent in minstrel shows in the late 19th century.

“Aunt Jemima” is based on the common stereotype of the “mammy” character who was hired to do the cooking and housework, back in the day.

aauntj 7

The Quaker Oats Company purchased the Aunt Jemima Mills Company in 1926, and formally registered the Aunt Jemima trademark in April 1937.  It remains one of the longest continually running logos and trademarks in the history of American advertising…, at least up until now.

“Following the Memorial Day death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody, however, social media critics denounced Aunt Jemima’s problematic history and demanded that Quaker make a change.”

“Social media critics?”

That’s liberal code for racial activists and propagandists.

“It was announced on June 17 that the line of pancake mix, syrup, and other breakfast foods will be debut a new look as part of Quaker’s push to ‘to make progress toward racial equality.’”

“The new packaging will be unveiled in fall 2020, with the product line’s new name revealed at a later date.”

Ooooh. I can’t wait!

Won’t it be great that the Black community will finally experience racial equality as a result of ditching Aunt Jemima?

“Through the next five years, Quaker said, the food conglomerate will donate at least $5 million to ‘to create meaningful, ongoing support and engagement in the Black community.’”

Translation:  Quaker will be donating $5 million to the democrat party…, for which none of the money will benefit the Black community directly.

“Earlier this year, Land O’ Lakes removed the ‘racist’ image of a Native American woman from its packaging, a logo featured on the butter brand’s label for nearly 100 years.”

aauntj 24

Again…, pathetic.  There was nothing “racist” about the image.

Let’s see…, who’s next?

The Lucky Charms’ leprechaun?

Colonel Sanders (an obvious plantation owner)?

Eskimo Pies?

aauntj 19

And what about sports team names?

The Washington Redskins?  This one should go.  Redskins?  Really?  And this is our nation’s capitols’ team?

aauntj 20

It doesn’t seem to bother these black guys.

The Cleveland Indians?  This one should go as well.

aauntj 21

The Atlanta Braves?  Debatable,

The Notre Dame Fighting Irish?  The Irish don’t seem to mind, sooo?

The Kansas City Chiefs?

The Chicago Blackhawks?

The Cleveland Browns?  Would The Washington Whites be okay?

The Redskin’s ownership has said they are finally ready to change their name.

Keep your eyes on the rest.  After the Redskins, the others will probably start dropping like flies as well.

Alexandra Deabler of Fox News reports that, “Uncle Ben’s rice may be getting a new logo after Quaker Foods announced it would be changing the name and image on its Aunt Jemima brand in a bid to “make progress toward racial equality.”

aauntj 13

“Mars Inc., which owns Uncle Ben’s, told Fox News on Wednesday that it was looking into updating the rice brand’s image.”

‘“As a global brand, we know we have a responsibility to take a stand in helping to put an end to racial bias and injustices,’ a spokesperson for Mars, Inc., said in an emailed statement to Fox News. ‘As we listen to the voices of consumers, especially in the Black community, and to the voices of our Associates worldwide, we recognize that now is the right time to evolve the Uncle Ben’s brand, including its visual brand identity, which we will do.’”

“Mars, Inc., meanwhile, has previously expressed its support for the Black Lives Matter movement.”

Ohhh, they support the Black Lives Matter movement?

Perhaps they should change the name to Uncle Karl’s and use the image of Karl Marx on their products?!

Black Lives Matter (BLM) isn’t really concerned about black lives at all.  They are only concerned with destroying America and establishing communist rule.

Mars, Inc. are obviously a bunch of uninformed and misguided fools.

‘“Racism has no place in society,’ the company said. ‘We stand in solidarity with the Black community, our Associates and our partners in the fight for social justice.’”

So, they’re saying every other race are racists, except blacks?

‘“We know to make the systemic change needed, it’s going to take a collective effort from all of us – individuals, communities and organizations of all sizes around the world.’”

FYI, Mars, Inc., the rest of the world really has no interest in doing anything about social injustice or racial inequality.

Just sayin’.

aauntj 15

Hey…, was Uncle Ben married to Aunt Jemima?!

“Since 1946, Uncle Ben’s products have carried the image of an elderly African-American man dressed in a bow tie, said to have been a Chicago maître d’hôtel named Frank Brown. According to Mars, Uncle Ben was an African-American rice grower known for the quality of his rice. Gordon L. Harwell, an entrepreneur who had supplied rice to the armed forces in World War II, chose the name Uncle Ben’s as a means to expand his marketing efforts to the general public.”

How dare they!

Maybe everything should be called “Rainbow” whatever?

Although, there isn’t any white in a rainbow.

aauntj 23

But there isn’t any black or brown in a rainbow either.

aauntj 22

So, “rainbow” wouldn’t work.

Maybe we should just package stuff in a plain white box or bag with plain black lettering?

Well, maybe not…, you know, the whole white and black thing.

Argh!  So, what are we to do?

Maybe just put everything in clear bags or boxes without any writing!

That way we can see what’s inside, and we don’t need any advertising or writing on the package!

In the case of pancake mix, we would just have to guess what the powder is.

Isn’t the advancement of civilization great?!

 

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 if 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.

We’re all entitled to our opinions.  I value yours and your feedback as well.

I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

 

There’s this club…, and you ain’t in it!

As time goes by, and we see how we seem to have a two-tiered justice system…, it’s very apparent that there is a big, privileged club, out there and we ain’t in it!

aclub 1

Yes folks…, a big, privileged club that does not have to obey the laws like we do, or at least be free of any accountability to the American people.

So who’s in “the club?”

aclub 8

aclub 2

aclub 3

aclub 6

aclub 7

Well, we’ve got Hillary, followed by James Comey, the “lovers” Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, James Clapper, William Brennam, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, John Kerry, all of the FISA Court Judges, all of the liberal New York And D.C. District Judges, and our lying “Russian collusion” and impeachment happy members of congress…, just for starters!

Hopefully Attorney General Barr and Investigator John Durham charge some of these club members with something before we all die of old age!

I can’t say we’re WINNING with “the club” just yet…, but the fat lady hasn’t sung yet either.

I’m still holding out hope that at least SOME level of justice will prevail.

ACLUB 13

aclub 12

aclub 11

aclub 9

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.

 

A former DEA agent thinks actor Sean Penn “should be in jail…,” and so do I!

According to Stephen Sorace of Fox News, “A now-retired agent of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency wants to see Sean Penn ‘in jail’ for putting lives at risk when the actor interviewed notorious drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” (Mexican slang for “Shorty”) Guzman for Rolling Stone [Magazine] in 2015.”

“Jack Riley, 60, came close to seeing “El Chapo” arrested on Oct. 2, 2015, but the operation conducted by Mexican Marines was interrupted when Penn, accompanied by Mexican soap opera actress, Kate del Castillo, arrived at the “El Tuna” compound, the New York Post reported.”

“Oh, my God! If I could get my hands on Sean Penn!” Riley, a former top agent with the DEA, told the Post. “The people he put at risk because of that stunt.  He should be in jail.”

“The Marines put the mission on hold so they wouldn’t risk putting the celebrities in danger, according to the paper.  But doing so cost authorities the element of surprise and allowed the drug kingpin to escape.”

“Riley tried to get Penn and del Castillo prosecuted for obstruction, but DEA and Justice Department officials didn’t pursue charges because the actor was protected by serving as a journalist, according to the Post.”

I’m pretty sure that being loud mouthed liberals didn’t hurt their cause either.  I’m willing to bet that if it had been Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh the “inJustice Department” would have taken a different stance.  Just sayin’.

“El Chapo” was finally arrested in 2016.  He faces multiple drug and murder conspiracy charges that could put him in prison for life if he’s convicted.

When are some actors, actresses and entertainers in general going to stop mistaking what they have to say as important, informative or even relevant?

So, Sean Penn stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, and then he thought he was a journalist and could interview “El Chapo?!”

I believe it’s either one of two things:

Either, at a certain point these divas come to realize how unimportant their “accomplishments” are and they attempt to compensate for that, or, their fame gives them a false sense of importance and relevance.

In Sean’s case, I feel it would be option number two.

Mr. Penn has since expressed regret that his exclusive Rolling Stone interview with Guzmán had not achieved its true purpose…, to start a conversation about the war on drugs.

What?  Excuse me Sean, but you are soooo full of crap.

“We’re going to put all our focus, all our energy, all our billions of dollars on the ‘bad guy’, and what happens?” Penn said. “You get another death the next day, the same way.”

That’s right Sean.  So tell me again how you think a wall on our southern border is immoral.  Tell me again how a barrier of some sort will not help us to curtail the flow of illegal drugs into our country.

“Let’s go to the big picture of what we all want,” Penn continued. “We all want this drug problem to stop. We all want them, the killings in Chicago, to stop.

No Sean, that’s not what “we all” want.

Some of us just like to talk a good game, but then we support sanctuary cities for people who have come into our country illegally.

Some of us just like to talk a good game, but then we support the dissolution of our Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.  The exact agency that deals with illegal immigrants and illegal drugs that flow into our country.

Some of us just like to talk a good game, but then pretend that a wall or physical barrier will be ineffective on our southern border, even though we know better.

You’re good at talking a good game, Sean.  We get it.  You’re an actor.

But how about just staying out of the way when some people are actually trying to make a positive difference.  That’s the least you could do.

So again, I believe actor Sean Penn should be in jail, or at the very least just shut his mouth and stick to playing someone who knows what they’re doing.

Oh, and just in case you’re interested, our friend Sean Penn is currently in Turkey working on a documentary about the death of his fellow “journalist,” the Saudi Arabian dissident, author, columnist for The Washington Post, and general manager and editor-in-chief of Al-Arab News Channel, Jamal Khashoggi, who was apparently assassinated at the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, in October of 2018 by agents of the Saudi government.

Be still my heart!

 

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.

sean penn and el chapo

I hope I’m wrong about our next Attorney General…, but I’m pretty sure I’m not.

President Trump has nominated William (Bill) Barr to be the next Attorney General of The United States.

Mr. Barr has been going through his confirmation hearings in The Senate this week, and it appears he will be confirmed.

So, who is this guy?

First off, he’s a lawyer.

From 1973 to 1977, Mr. Barr was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency.

He was then a law clerk to Judge Malcolm Wilkey of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1977 through 1978.

He served on the domestic policy staff at the Reagan White House from May 3, 1982 to September 5, 1983, with his official title being Deputy Assistant Director for Legal Policy.  He was also in private practice for nine years with the Washington law firm of Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge.

In 1989, at the beginning of his administration, President George H. W. Bush appointed Barr to the U.S. Department of Justice as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, an office which functions as the legal advisor for the President and executive agencies.

In May 1990, Barr was appointed Deputy Attorney General, the official responsible for day-to-day management of the DOJ.  According to media reports, Barr was generally praised for his professional management of the Department.

During August 1991, when then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh resigned to campaign for the Senate, Barr was named Acting Attorney General.

President Bush then nominated him to be the next Attorney General, and served in that role from 1991–1993.

Upon leaving the DOJ in 1994, Barr became Executive Vice President and General Counsel of GTE Corporation, where he served for 14 years.

In 2008, when GTE merged with Bell Atlantic to become Verizon Communications, he left that position. While at GTE, from 1997 to 2005 Barr also served on the Board of Visitors of the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg.

In 2009, Barr was briefly of counsel to the firm Kirkland & Ellis.

From 2010 until 2017, he advised corporations on government enforcement matters and regulatory litigation.

He rejoined Kirkland and Ellis in 2017.

So, he has played this game before, and he seems to be considered a “conservative.”

But is that good enough?  Let’s take a closer look.

First of all, the Senate democrats don’t seem to be putting up much of a fuss against Mr. Barr.  That’s the first indication that he may not be what he appears to be.

If Bill Barr is confirmed, he would become Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s supervisor.

Barr has had a “personal relationship” with Robert Mueller for more than 25 years, according to Richard Manning of Fox News.

Also, “Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham revealed that Barr worked with Mueller when Barr previously served as attorney general from 1991 to 1993 under President George H.W. Bush. But on top of that, the two were “best friends” and their wives attended Bible study together.”

Oh…, c’mon!

“When added to the knowledge that Mueller had attended the weddings of Barr’s children, it is clear that Barr’s relationship with the special counsel is extremely close.”

Okay, we just jumped from DEFCON 1 to DEFCON 5!

I may be mistaken, but wouldn’t Barr’s personal relationship with Robert Mueller be reason enough for him to end up recusing himself from the whole situation like Jeff Sessions did?

Just sayin’.

Richard Manning then added, “Hopefully, President Trump has found the honest man who not only can shine a light on the corruption within the Justice Department but also has the guts and the legal gravitas to do something about it, becoming the swamp’s worse nightmare.”

“With that background and perspective, Barr could be a brilliant choice to run the Justice Department. With public confidence in the Justice Department and FBI at the bottom of the barrel, Barr’s intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the department would allow him to begin the cleanup that is desperately needed.”

Then again, he may be just another “swamp monster” in disguise.

It is common knowledge now that Robert Mueller knowingly used Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants based on Democratic research that has since been called by the then-FBI Director, James Comey, “salacious and unverified” as the foundation its Russia probe.

And the Justice Department was so committed to their partisan, treasonous, mission that officials deliberately turned a blind eye to very real concerns about the relationship of both former President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, with both Russia and Hillary Clinton’s apparent violations of laws related to handling classified documents.

“As Attorney General, will Barr excuse his old friend Mueller and former Justice Department colleagues, giving them a pass?” Richard Manning asks.

I’m pretty sure the answer to that question is a big “yes.”

“Or hopefully, President Trump has found the honest man who not only can shine a light on the corruption within the Justice Department but also has the guts and the legal gravitas to do something about it, becoming ‘he swamp’s’ worse nightmare.”

I hope I am wrong and that this is the case, Mr. Manning, but history would suggest that I am not wrong, and that not much will change, and that all of these “swamp rats” will remain above the law.

I’ll keep you posted.

 

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.

bill barr

 

 

 

 

It’s not nice to speak ill of the dead, but former Senator John McCain was a vindictive, back stabbing, lying, establishment RINO weasel!   

Well, I think the title just about sums it up!

But how do I really feel?

Please refer to two of my previous blogs on John McCain from May 18, 2018: “Who was John McCain?  Who is John McCain?”  And “John McCain and James Comey are two ‘swampy’ peas in a ‘swampy’ pod!”

Many of the more recent developments surrounding the “fraudulent and libelous Steele dossier” continue to support my initial beliefs (Please see again the title of this blog).

Fox News’ Gregg Re reported that, “An associate of the late Arizona Republican, Sen. John McCain, shared with ‘Buzzfeed News’ a copy of the unverified, salacious opposition research dossier alleging that Russians had compromising material on President Trump, according to a bombshell federal court filing Wednesday [12/19/18].”

McCain, of course, has strongly denied that he was the source for “Buzzfeed” after it published the dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

I guess technically, McCain didn’t actually personally hand the dossier over to “Buzzfeed,” his “associate,” or “gofer,” or “flunky” did.  This is a typical weasel move, and it’s called plausible deniability, at least until your “associate” or other evidence hold your feet to the fire.

Gregg Re adds that, “In recent days, the dossier’s credibility has increasingly come under question, as the Yahoo News investigative reporter who broke news of its existence said many of its claims were “likely false,” and an adviser to ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen said Cohen never went to Prague to pay off Russian hackers, as alleged in the dossier.”

The “dossier’s credibility” has actually been in question for quite some time by many observers, not just in “recent days.”

Earlier this year, Fox News reported that a top McCain associate, David Kramer, had been briefed on the dossier written by British ex-spy Christopher Steele in late November 2016 in Surrey, England.  Kramer “took the fifth,” invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid testifying before House Republicans about his handling of the dossier.

So let’s take an appraisal of the situation at this point.

This is all happening AFTER Donald Trump has been elected president.  Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration, the FBI and the DOJ have already used the bogus dossier to get their FISA warrants and spy on the Trump campaign.  The only problem is it didn’t do any good and Donald Trump still won!  Now the FBI and the DOJ are into their fall back plan of trying to discredit the newly elected President Trump while covering their backsides along with the backsides of their other partners in crime, Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration.

So they (the FBI and the DOJ) came up with this plan to get their old “swampy” friend McCain, who doesn’t like Donald Trump and who is half a democrat anyway, to think he has discovered all of this juicy info on Donald Trump, which he passes on to the FBI (who have already had the dossier and used it for months already) and then leaks it to the press in an attempt to embarrass newly elected President Trump, thus doing all of the dirty work for the FBI and the DOJ.

You’re so gullible McFly…, I mean McCain!

I’m sure McCain had visions of grandeur, with himself being called a “hero” for exposing these vile deeds (even though they were all made up) by his friends in the “biased, liberal, fake news media,” all of the enemies of Trump, which included most politicians, republican and democrat, while at the same time taking an ounce of flesh from Donald Trump, who McCain hated with a passion.

So, the FBI and the DOJ now use the bogus dossier…, again, as a basis for launching the Special Counsel (the Mueller investigation).

You’ve got to hand it to them in one regard; you just couldn’t make this stuff up if it wasn’t true.

The only problem now is that McCain’s “associate” and “go-between” is singing like a bird.

I wonder if he uses Twitter!

Sorry about that one.  It was just too easy.

Anyway, according to Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne and Cyd Upson of Fox News, “The man who says he acted as a “go-between” last year to inform Sen. John McCain about the controversial “dossier” containing salacious allegations about then-candidate Donald Trump is speaking out, revealing how the ex-British spy who researched the document helped coordinate its release to the FBI, the media and Capitol Hill.

“My mission was essentially to be a go-between and a messenger, to tell the senator and assistants that such a dossier existed,” Sir Andrew Wood told Fox News in an exclusive interview with senior executive producer Pamela K. Browne.

Just after the U.S. presidential election in November of 2016, Arizona Sen. McCain spoke at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada.  Wood says he was instructed, by former British spy Christopher Steele, to reach out to the senior Republican, whom Wood called “a good man,” about the unverified document.

“Wood insists that he’s never read the dossier that his good friend and longtime colleague prepared.  It was commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS and funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.”

Along with the senator, Wood and McCain Institute for International Leadership staffer David J. Kramer attended the Canadian conference.

In January of 2017, McCain officially gave the dossier to the FBI, which already had its own copy from Steele.

The obvious question now is: What is the status of the Mueller investigation then?

Since the investigation was initiated based on the now debunked, “fraudulent and libelous Steele dossier,” should the investigation be terminated since it was obviously started under false pretenses?

I believe the answer is obviously “yes.”

As a matter of fact, I believe the whole situation warrants another Special Counsel to investigate those who actually committed the crimes here: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and various members of his administration, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Rod Rosenstein, and other upper level employees of the FBI and the DOJ.

Stay thirsty my friends!

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

mccain dirtbag

 

“If liberals didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.”

That quote is by Burt Prelutsky, an award winning author and screenwriter.

The word “liberals” here covers what we would call “the swamp,” which includes establishment politicians/appointees and the “biased, liberal, fake news media.”

The latest examples of the left’s double standards have reared their heads in the forms of former Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen and former FBI Director James Comey.

For some reason, James Comey is under the impression that he is able to dictate to Congress how, when and if he will respond to their lawful subpoena to testify regarding the Clinton email scandal and the unlawful spying on the Trump campaign on his watch.

Former congressman and now Fox News contributor, Jason Chaffetz, brought up a good point when he asked, “Why is Michael Cohen prosecuted when Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder and Lois Lerner were not?”

Yes, that is a very good question, but a question that we all know the answer to as well.  The answer is that “the swamp” is very good at protecting their own, while vilifying and attacking those who threaten “the swamp” to any degree.

“With a Republican president in place and soon-to-be Democrat-run House, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has conveniently remembered that they have the ability to prosecute people who lie to Congress.  This was a power they had inexplicably forgotten about during the 10 years that Democrats were benefiting from witnesses who lied.”

And that’s not even taking into account all of the witnesses and participants who were granted complete immunity by a complicit FBI and a complicit DOJ.

“No doubt there should be consequences and accountability if you testify to Congress under oath and blatantly lie or violate the law.  But the DOJ seems to have different standards based on which party’s political fortunes will be impacted.  It is this unequal application of justice that is dividing the country and threatens peace.”

“True peace is not merely the absence of war, it is the presence of justice.” – Jane Addams, the first woman to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

“Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former attorney, struck a plea deal with the DOJ for lying to Congress.  But what about all the other egregious cases of misconduct interacting with Congress?  Why weren’t those pursued or prosecuted?”

They weren’t pursued because the people at the upper levels could not throw these people “under the bus” without them in turn throwing their bosses “under the bus.” It’s one big “CYA” lovefest!

“Let’s look back at how a very similar case was handled just a few short years ago.  After FBI Director James Comey announced there would be no charges against Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or any of her associates for a variety of potential unlawful acts, Comey testified before the House Oversight Committee.”

We know now that James Comey drafted his Hillary Clinton “forgiveness” letter months before he even heard any of the findings and evidence against her.  Her “innocence” was a predetermined outcome.

Jason Chaffetz continues by saying, “When I asked Comey specifically if he had reviewed Secretary Clinton’s testimony before the Benghazi Select Committee, he confirmed the FBI never reviewed nor considered that testimony.  As Chair of Oversight, I along with Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte sent a formal request to the DOJ.  We never even got a response.  Note the contradiction: Cohen is forced into a plea deal and Clinton’s lies to Congress were not even reviewed.”

The arrogance of the leadership of the DOJ and the FBI is outrageous.  Who does this collection of appointees and hired help think they work for?  They apparently have the impression that they don’t have to answer to anybody.  But that is not the case.  The duly elected Congress, the representatives of We the People, are charged by The Constitution to oversee and keep in line these departments on behalf of The People.

“The inconsistency always seems to conveniently favor the Democrats and penalize those connected to Donald Trump.”

“Eric Holder [Obama’s first Attorney General] became the first Attorney General (AG) in the history of the United States of America to be held in contempt of Congress.  Nearly a year after the formal vote in the House of Representatives, the DOJ said they were going to exercise prosecutorial discretion and not pursue charges.  Again, note the contrast.  Cohen is prosecuted. The Holder matter is not even presented to a grand jury as required by law.”

“Last year the DOJ settled two lawsuits involving 469 conservative groups by paying $3.5 million [in damages] for the targeting done by the IRS in suppressing their applications based on their conservative nature.  IRS employee Lois Lerner and others were never prosecuted by the DOJ.  In other words, DOJ pays for wrongdoing by the IRS but nobody is held accountable.  Yet, Cohen is the one they do pursue.”

Can you just imagine the uproar by the “biased, liberal, fake news media” if the shoe had been on the other foot?

“In the Fast & Furious gun running operation, the DOJ knowingly and willingly allowed nearly 2,000 firearms, mostly AK-47s, to be illegally purchased by drug cartels.  Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed with one of those guns.  Responding officially to Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the DOJ flatly denied the critical aspects of the case.  Ten months later the DOJ withdrew the letter because of the lies and inaccuracies.”

Former President Barack Obama has been quoted as saying, “I didn’t have any scandals during my administration.”  Just another example of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” choosing to look the other way and capitulate to the false narrative propagated by President Obama.

“Was anybody dismissed, reprimanded or prosecuted?  No, but now that the tables are turned, Cohen is being prosecuted for the much lesser crime of not fully articulating the extent of Donald Trump’s personal business dealings.”

“There isn’t enough room on the internet to list all of the examples of double standards and unequal applications of the law. The inconsistency always seems to conveniently favor the Democrats and penalize those connected to Donald Trump.  This obvious disconnect legitimately erodes faith in our justice system and further divides the country.”

This, of course, is completely fine with the democrats, as “further dividing the country” is one of their main goals.  And they are able to achieve this goal with the willing cooperation of a “fake news” and  propagandist media who twist the truth around to attack those who are actually seeking justice.

“The most sacred of the duties of a government is to do equal and impartial justice to all citizens.” – Thomas Jefferson

 

Jason Chaffetz is a Fox News contributor who was the chairman of the U.S. House Oversight Committee when he served as a representative from Utah.  He is also the author of “The Deep State: How an Army of Bureaucrats Protected Barack Obama and is Working to Destroy the Trump Agenda.”

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

obama double standard

 

What the heck are these “Federalist Papers” I’ve been hearing about, and why do they seem so important when we talk about “interpreting” The Constitution?

“I think the first duty of society is justice.” – Alexander Hamilton

The Federalist Papers are a collection of 85 newspaper articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, under the pen name “Publius,” to promote the ratification of the United States Constitution.

The first 77 of these essays were published, in a series, in three different New York newspapers, between October of 1787 and April of 1788.  A two-volume compilation of these 77 essays and eight others was later published as “The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favor of the New Constitution, as Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787,” in March and May of 1788.

The authors of The Federalist Papers intended to influence the voters to ratify the Constitution.  In “Federalist No. 1,” Alexander Hamilton set that argument in motion:

“It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.”

“Federalist No. 10” is generally regarded as the most important of the 85 articles from a philosophical standpoint.  In it, James Madison discusses the destructive role of a faction in breaking apart the republic. The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative effects of factions.  Madison defines a faction as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

According to historian Richard B. Morris, the essays that make up The Federalist Papers are an “incomparable exposition of The Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later American writer.”

At the time of publication, the authors of The Federalist Papers attempted to hide their identities for fear of prosecution.  The authorship of the papers breaks down like this:

Alexander Hamilton (51 articles: No. 1, 6–9, 11–13, 15–17, 21–36, 59–61, and 65–85)

James Madison (29 articles: No. 10, 14, 18–20, 37–58 and 62–63)

John Jay (5 articles: No. 2–5 and 64)

Hamilton represented New York at the Constitutional Convention, and in 1789 became the first Secretary of the Treasury, until he resigned in 1795.

Madison, who is now acknowledged as the father of the Constitution, became a leading member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia (1789–1797), Secretary of State (1801–1809), and ultimately the fourth President of the United States.

Jay, became the first Chief Justice of the United States in 1789, until stepping down in 1795 to accept his election as the governor of New York.

The Federal Convention sent the proposed Constitution to the Confederation Congress, which in turn submitted it to the states for ratification at the end of September 1787.  On September 27, 1787, an article by an author known only as “Cato” first appeared in the New York press criticizing the proposition.  Soon after, an article by an author known as “Brutus” followed on October 18, 1787, also criticizing the newly proposed constitution.  These and other articles and public letters critical of the new Constitution would become known as the “Anti-Federalist Papers.”  These articles were the impetus for Alexander Hamilton’s response, as he decided to launch his defense and explanation of the proposed Constitution to the people of the state of New York.  He wrote in “Federalist No. 1” that the series would “endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.”

Alexander Hamilton chose the pen name “Publius.” While many other pieces representing both sides of the constitutional debate were written under Roman pen names such as “Publius,” “Caesar,” “Brutus” and “Cato.”  In ancient Rome, Publius Valerius helped found the ancient republic of Rome.  He was also known as Publicola, which meant “friend of the people.”

Although written and published relatively quickly, “The Federalist articles” were widely read and greatly influenced the shape of America, politically.  Hamilton, Madison and Jay published the essays at a rapid pace.  At times, three to four new essays appeared in the papers in a single week.  Hamilton also encouraged the reprinting of the essays in newspapers outside of New York State.

In Federalist No. 1, Hamilton listed six topics to be covered in the subsequent articles:

“The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity” – covered in No. 2 through No. 14

“The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union” –covered in No. 15 through No. 22

“The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed to the attainment of this object” – covered in No. 23 through No. 36

“The conformity of the proposed constitution to the true principles of republican government” – covered in No. 37 through No. 84

“Its analogy to your own state constitution” – covered in No. 85

“The additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty and to prosperity” – covered in No. 85.

Here is a list of The Federalist Papers in order:

#       Date, Title, Author

1       October 27, 1787, General Introduction, Alexander Hamilton

2       October 31, 1787, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, John Jay

3       November 3, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, John Jay

4       November 7, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, John Jay

5       November 10, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, John Jay

6       November 14, 1787, Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States, Alexander Hamilton

7       November 15, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States, Alexander Hamilton

8       November 20, 1787, The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States, Alexander Hamilton

9       November 21, 1787, The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and  Insurrection, Alexander Hamilton

10     November 22, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, James Madison

11     November 24, 1787 The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy, Alexander Hamilton

12     November 27, 1787, The Utility of the Union In Respect to Revenue, Alexander Hamilton

13     November 28, 1787, Advantage of the Union in Respect to Economy in Government, Alexander Hamilton

14     November 30, 1787, Objections to the Proposed Constitution From Extent of Territory Answered, James Madison

15     December 1, 1787, The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, Alexander Hamilton

16     December 4, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, Alexander Hamilton

17     December 5, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, Alexander Hamilton

18     December 7, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, James Madison

19     December 8, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, James Madison

20     December 11, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, James Madison

21     December 12, 1787, Other Defects of the Present Confederation, Alexander Hamilton

22     December 14, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Other Defects of the Present Confederation, Alexander Hamilton

23     December 18, 1787, The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union, Alexander Hamilton

24     December 19, 1787, The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered, Alexander Hamilton

25     December 21, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered, Alexander Hamilton

26     December 22, 1787, The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered, Alexander Hamilton

27     December 25, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered, Alexander Hamilton

28     December 26, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered, Alexander Hamilton

29     January 9, 1788, Concerning the Militia, Alexander Hamilton

30     December 28, 1787, Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

31     January 1, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

32     January 2, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

33     January 2, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

34     January 5, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

35     January 5, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

36     January 8, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

37     January 11, 1788, Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government, James Madison

38     January 12, 1788, The Same Subject Continued, and the Incoherence of the Objections to the New Plan Exposed, James Madison

39     January 18, 1788, The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles, James Madison

40     January 18, 1788, The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained, James Madison

41     January 19, 1788, General View of the Powers Conferred by the Constitution, James Madison

42     January 22, 1788, The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered, James Madison

43     January 23, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered, James Madison

44     January 25, 1788, Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States, James Madison

45     January 26, 1788, The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered, James Madison

46     January 29, 1788, The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared, James Madison

47     January 30, 1788, The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts, James Madison

48     February 1, 1788, These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other, James Madison

49     February 2, 1788, Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government, James Madison

50     February 5, 1788, Periodic Appeals to the People Considered, James Madison

51     February 6, 1788, The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments, James Madison

52     February 8, 1788, The House of Representatives, James Madison

53     February 9, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: The House of Representatives, James Madison

54     February 12, 1788, The Apportionment of Members Among the States, James Madison

55     February 13, 1788, The Total Number of the House of Representatives, James Madison

56     February 16, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: The Total Number of the House of Representatives, James Madison

57     February 19, 1788, The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many, James Madison

58     February 20, 1788, Objection That The Number of Members Will Not Be Augmented as the Progress of Population Demands Considered, James Madison

59     February 22, 1788, Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members, Alexander Hamilton

60     February 23, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members, Alexander Hamilton

61     February 26, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members, Alexander Hamilton

62     February 27, 1788, The Senate, James Madison

63     March 1, 1788, The Senate Continued, James Madison

64     March 5, 1788, The Powers of the Senate, John Jay

65     March 7, 1788, The Powers of the Senate Continued, Alexander Hamilton

66     March 8, 1788, Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered, Alexander Hamilton

67     March 11, 1788, The Executive Department, Alexander Hamilton

68     March 12, 1788, The Mode of Electing the President, Alexander Hamilton

69     March 14, 1788, The Real Character of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

70     March 15, 1788, The Executive Department Further Considered, Alexander Hamilton

71     March 18, 1788, The Duration in Office of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

72     March 19, 1788, The Same Subject Continued, and Re-Eligibility of the Executive Considered, Alexander Hamilton

73     March 21, 1788, The Provision For The Support of the Executive, and the Veto Power, Alexander Hamilton

74     March 25, 1788, The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

75     March 26, 1788, The Treaty Making Power of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

76     April 1, 1788, The Appointing Power of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

77     April 2, 1788, The Appointing Power Continued and Other Powers of the Executive Considered, Alexander Hamilton

78     May 28, 1788 (book) June 14, 1788 (newspaper), The Judiciary Department, Alexander Hamilton

79     May 28, 1788 (book) June 18, 1788 (newspaper), The Judiciary Continued, Alexander Hamilton

80     June 21, 1788, The Powers of the Judiciary, Alexander Hamilton

81     June 25, 1788 and June 28, 1788, The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority, Alexander Hamilton

82     July 2, 1788, The Judiciary Continued, Alexander Hamilton

83     July 5, 1788, July 9, 1788 and July 12, 1788, The Judiciary Continued in Relation to Trial by Jury, Alexander Hamilton

84     July 16, 1788, July 26, 1788 and August 9, 1788, Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered, Alexander Hamilton

85     August 13, 1788 and August 16, 1788, Concluding Remarks, Alexander Hamilton

As you can see, the list of constitutional topics covered in “The Papers” is quite extensive and very encompassing.  “The Papers” can sometimes help us when interpreting The Constitution by providing the original intentions of the framers and by giving us a little extra insight.

By 2000, The Federalist Papers had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions.

If you had any questions about The Federalist Papers…, hopefully they’ve now been answered.

Stay thirsty my friends!  It’s always better to be more knowledgeable than not.

“The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.” – James Madison, 4th President of The Unites States

“The loss of liberty to a generous mind is worse than death.” – Alexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington

“America belongs to ‘We the People.’  It does not belong to The Congress.  It does not belong to special interest groups.  It does not belong to The Courts.   It belongs to ‘We the People.'” – John Jay, First Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

federalist papers

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑