So the “biased, liberal, fake news media” now feels it is OK to belittle the education level of selected groups of voters?

The answer to this question is undeniably “yes,” at least as far as Eugene Scott of The Washington Post is concerned.

Mr. Scott chooses to point out that, “Americans are pursuing higher education at growing rates, but those without a college education are increasingly finding a home in the GOP.”

So are you implying that voters without college educations are somehow less informed, Mr. Scott?

Are you implying that voters without college educations are somehow less deserving of the right to vote, Mr. Scott?

During the latest midterm elections in 2018, if I heard it once I heard it a thousand times from the democrats, “Every vote counts!” “Every vote deserves to be counted!”

I guess that’s only true when you’re “harvesting” what you believe are votes for democrats. Right Mr. Scott?

Voter demographics should not have a bearing on anything. Each voter is as important as any other voter. The important things are that each legal voter have the opportunity to vote, and that they vote only once.

According to new data released by the Pew Research Center, higher educational attainment is increasingly associated with Democratic Party affiliation and leaning:

“In 1994, 39% of those with a four-year college degree identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party and 54% associated with the Republican Party. In 2017, those figures were exactly reversed.”

More than half of registered voters who identify as Democrat have a bachelor’s degree, while fewer than 4 in 10 registered voters who identify as Republican have a bachelor’s degree.

Those with graduate degrees are even more likely to find their political home in the Democratic Party, according to the survey.

Meanwhile, the GOP has increasingly become more of a political destination to Americans who lack a college degree, according to Pew, “Among those with no more than a high school education, 47% affiliate with the GOP or lean Republican, while 45% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic.”

In Mr. Scott’s estimation, “This may not bode well for the GOP long-term as the American public becomes increasingly educated.”

I think he means, “… as the American public becomes increasingly brain washed by our liberal education systems!”

According to Census Bureau data, “More than a third of American adults have a four-year college degree or higher, the highest level ever measured by the Census Bureau.”

Why Mr. Scott…, I do believe you are “fake news!”

You say, “This may not bode well for the GOP long-term as the American public becomes increasingly educated,” but if “more than a third of American adults have a four-year college degree or higher,” that would mean close to two thirds do not. How does that “not bode well for the GOP?”

Mr. Scott goes on to say, “As the Republican Party increasingly becomes the party of those without degrees, their leaders may feel pressure to champion policies that benefit working class voters…”

Well, we can’t have that! Right Mr. Scott?

That damn “working class,” right Mr. Scott?

Those pathetically ignorant “working class” voters who don’t deserve to vote, but pay for all of your liberal “give-away” programs, right Mr. Scott?

Pew data shows that the educational makeup of the two major parties’ electorates also has changed substantially over the past two decades, particularly when factoring in race:

“When race and education are taken into account, white voters who do to not have a college degree make up a diminished share of Democratic registered voters. White voters who do not have a four-year degree now constitute just a third of Democratic voters, down from 56% two decades ago. By contrast, non-college white voters continue to make up a majority of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters at 59%.”

Ha! I knew it wouldn’t take long before race got involved in the issue!

Apparently “non-educated” white voters are less desirable that “non-educated” Black or Latino voters.

Mr. Scott finishes by saying, “Some top GOP officials have attracted attention for their desire to win women and people of color to their party. Perhaps moving forward we’ll see more emphasis on what can be done to win the highly educated.”

It seems to me, Mr. Scott, that your “highly educated” people are more often than not the people that are more “highly confused.”

Also, why is it that liberals seem to only value education as a result of a college education?

How about educations and training acquired by our “trade” professionals, like electricians, plumbers, welders, carpenters, HVAC technicians, mechanics, licensed practical nurses, construction professionals, et al? Do these educations, most of which are quite extensive, not count just because they are practical?

How about the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who serve in our military, most of whom do not have college educations? Do these educations not count because they are practical in nature?

No, these educations don’t “count” in the minds of liberals because these are educations that do not indoctrinate the students into the liberal political ideology.

Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu, also of The Washington Post, have their own take on voter demographics, specifically as they pertain to Donald Trump’s election and support.

Carnes and Lupu say that, “Media coverage of the 2016 election often emphasized Donald Trump’s appeal to ‘the working class.’ The Atlantic said that ‘the billionaire developer is building a blue-collar foundation.’ The Associated Press wondered what ‘Trump’s success in attracting white, working-class voters’ would mean for his general election strategy. On Nov. 9, the New York Times front-page article about Trump’s victory characterized it as ‘a decisive demonstration of power by a largely overlooked coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters.’”

“But what about education?” They continued. “Many pundits noticed early on that Trump’s supporters were mostly people without college degrees. There were two problems with this line of reasoning, however.”

“First, not having a college degree isn’t a guarantee that someone belongs in the working class, nor should it somehow indicate that these people are not successful (think Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, Aretha Franklin, Quentin Tarantino, Ellen DeGeneres, Simon Cowell, Ted Turner, Rachel Ray, Kim Kardasian, Mark Wahlberg, Al Pacino, Seth Rogan, Marshall “Eminem” Mathers, and Robert ‘F-you’ DeNiro, just to name a few).”

“And, second, although more than 70 percent of Trump supporters didn’t have college degrees, when we looked at the NBC polling data, we noticed something the pundits left out: during the primaries, about 70 percent of all Republicans didn’t have college degrees, close to the national average (71 percent according to the 2013 Census). Far from being a magnet for the less educated, Trump seemed to have about as many people without college degrees in his camp as we would expect any successful Republican candidate to have.”

So Mr. Scott, you have been debunked!

“Observers have often used the education gap to conjure images of poor people flocking to Trump, but the truth is, many of the people without college degrees who voted for Trump were from middle- and high-income households.”

Many, if not most, of these “observers” are quite confused and quite biased as well. “Poor people” flocking to candidates is, again, only desirable when they are “flocking” to the appropriate liberal candidate.

“In short, the narrative that attributes Trump’s victory to a “coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters” just doesn’t square with the 2016 election data. According to the election study, white non-Hispanic voters without college degrees making below the median household income made up only 25 percent of Trump voters.”

In a word, there are “uneducated voters” and then there are “uneducated voters.”

It would appear that it is the democrats who are a party of extremes. They seem to be comprised mostly of college eggheads, highly paid entertainers, extreme social and environmental interest groups, high school drop-outs, high school graduates who haven’t furthered their education, and all of those who live off of the government and have no intent to better themselves.

In a recent National Review article (The National Review is recognized as a leading conservative magazine, but was exposed during the election as just another “swampy,” establishment, media outlet) about Trump’s alleged support among the working class bordered on a call to arms against the less fortunate, saying that, “The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin,” and that “the truth about these dysfunctional downscale communities is that they deserve to die.”

According to Carnes and Lupu, “This kind of stereotyping and scapegoating is a dismaying consequence of the narrative that working-class Americans swept Trump into the White House. What deserves to die isn’t America’s working-class communities. It’s the myth that they’re the reason Trump was elected.”

Shame on you National Review, and shame on you Eugene Scott.

And thank you to Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu for reporting the facts and not twisting the facts to fit the liberal narrative.

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.

January 3, 2019 0

WINNING! President Trump does it again!

President Trump, with Dr. Martin Luther King’s niece, Alveda King, by his side, and surrounded by a diverse and bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives, signed a BIPARTISAN criminal justice overhaul bill in the Oval Office on Friday, December 21, 2018.

Did I just say “bipartisan?”

Yes I did, and President Trump just continues to WIN for the Black community and some of the less fortunate communities and citizens in our country.

First it, in the recent tax cut bill, which supposedly “helped only our billionaire friends,” money was set aside for an extensive community development program which established “opportunity zones” where investment is encouraged and rewarded in these economically distressed areas. (Please see my prior blog on President Trump’s executive order regarding these “opportunity zones.”)

And now an overhauling of the criminal justice system, called “The First Step Act.”

Can you imagine what President Trump could accomplish if he wasn’t such a “racist and a culturally insensitive monster” according to the “biased, liberal, fake news media?”

The House overwhelmingly passed the bill Thursday night, 358 to 36. Two days earlier, The Senate voted in favor of the Bill 87-12.

Those votes represent a level of bipartisanship that isn’t seen very often, especially these days.

President Trump and his son-in-law, senior adviser Jared Kushner, along with his daughter Ivanka, lobbied hard for the bill, named the “First Step Act.”

“America is the greatest Country in the world and my job is to fight for ALL citizens, even those who have made mistakes,” The President tweeted moments after the vote.

“This will keep our communities safer, and provide hope and a second chance, to those who earn it. In addition to everything else, billions of dollars will be saved. I look forward to signing this into law!” President Trump added.

CNN reported that, “The legislation is aimed at easing sentences for nonviolent offenders, reducing the number of repeat offenders and increasing prisoner rehabilitation efforts.”

President Trump called the passage of the bill “an incredible success for our country.”

“Criminal justice reform; everybody said it couldn’t be done,” President Trump said. “They said the conservatives won’t approve it. They said the liberals won’t approve it. They said, ‘Nobody’s going to approve it. Everybody’s going to be against it.’”

And they were “all” against it [the bill] to begin with. At least each other’s version of it. But President Trump isn’t your average “cookie cutter” conservative. He isn’t your average “republican” either. He’s an American first, and he wants what’s best for Americans, and he doesn’t care which party gets behind and supports his efforts, as long as they are supported and acted on.

The vote, in fact, was also hailed by Democrats. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said, “The nation’s prisons are full of Americans who are struggling with mental illness and addiction, and who are overwhelmingly poor. “The nation’s criminal justice system feeds on certain communities and not on others,” and said “the bill represents a step toward healing for those communities.”

“Let’s make no mistake, this legislation, which is one small step, will affect thousands and thousands of lives,” Senator Booker said.

The bill makes the process of getting a job and re-entering society again fairer and easier, for people who have done their time.

CNN added that, “The passage of the bill culminates years of negotiations and gives President Trump a signature policy victory, with the outcome hailed by scores of conservative and liberal advocacy groups alike.”

During the signing ceremony, President Trump actually thanked Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, as well, for their support. I think this goes to show that President Trump doesn’t take a lot of these things that are thrown at him personally. It’s just business to him, and getting results is all that matters.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 27, 2018 1

When money talks, media bias walks!

Yes, when it comes to the stock market, investing and business in general, money still rules over political agendas and media bias.

Greed may not be a virtue, and in fact it’s one of the “7 deadly sins,” but at least it doesn’t pretend to be something it’s not.

“Money” will always react in its own best interest, regardless of who or what is responsible.

“Business is business…, it’s nothing personal.”

The “biased, liberal, fake news media” and the democrats can try and spin words, events and policies any which way want, and millions of gullible Americans may buy what they’re selling, but money cuts through all of that and focuses on reality, not propaganda.

On the eve of the presidential election, in November of 2016, when all of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” pundits, experts and talking heads predicted a stock market collapse, and basically the end of the world should Donald Trump win the election, “money” was prepared with the appropriate reaction.

Even Matt Egan, of CNN Business News had to admit that, “Wall Street welcomes Trump with a bang” the day after the election.

“That didn’t take long,” Egan declared. “An overnight panic in global markets evaporated as Wall Street gave an emphatic welcome to President-elect Donald Trump.”

Huh? So what happened to all of that “end of the world” propaganda talk from these so called “experts” that we were hearing less than 24 hours earlier? Well, these “experts” had moved on from that “hit job,” and they were already doing their “swampy” best to downplay The Market’s reaction to Trump’s election, putting the whole thing in the proper perspective for all of the rest of us, and attempting to dampen any and all positive reactions to it.

The facts are that, The Dow soared 257 points and brushed up against lifetime highs already on Wednesday, the day after the election, defying those who predicted Trump’s election would bring about a plunge in the stock market.

Peter Kenny, an independent market strategist, admitted that the market, “Greeted Trump with a far more positive footing than I expected. He’s receiving a very warm welcome.”

So, if you ever want to get an honest reaction to any events or policies, just watch how “money” reacts to it.

It’s a safe bet every time.

“For the love of money is the root of all evil…” – 1 Timothy 6:10

“The lack of money is the root of all evil.” – Mark Twain

“We live by the Golden Rule. Those who have the gold make the rules.” – Buzzy Bavasi, Major League baseball executive

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 26, 2018 0

Up and up The Fed’s interest rate goes, where it’ll stop nobody knows!

The Federal Reserve raised the nation’s borrowing rate by 0.25% for the fourth time this year, despite months of objections from President Trump.

According to Lucy Bayly, the business editor for NBC News, “President Trump fears higher interest rates will take the steam out of the nation’s booming economy.”

She continues by saying, “As head of the Federal Reserve, [Jay] Powell has found himself uncharacteristically singled out for criticism over the central bank’s handling of interest rates, with Trump saying he ‘maybe regretted nominating Powell to the position.’”

“I have a hot economy going,” President Trump said in October, and “every time we do something great, he raises the interest rates.”

Ms. Bayly feel sthat, “Powell’s challenge at this juncture has been to make it clear that the Fed’s decision was data driven and not due to any deference to the political establishment, which would have risked the central bank’s credibility as an independent agency.”

That’s kind of funny. Why does it seem that “The Fed,” the central bank, only seems concerned about its credibility when there is a Republican president?

During an interview with “Yahoo Finance,” Edward Stringham, an economist, Professor of Economic Innovation at Trinity College and the president of the American Institute of Economic Research, said, “We’ve had artificially low interest rates for years.” The Fed has apparently admitted to this because Mr. Stringham goes on to say that, “The Fed has said that they want to get away from that [artificially low interest rates].”

What does “artificially low interest rates” mean? Why would The Fed be dealing with anything that is “artificial?” I take it to mean that The Fed had lowered the rates, or kept them low, for reasons other than financial and/or economic merit.

In other words, it sounds kind of “swampy” and politically motivated to me.

Well, let’s take a look at the recent history of The Federal Reserve Bank, how they’ve handled the rates, and you decide.

When George W. Bush took office in 2001, the interest rate was at 6%.

By June of 2003 the rate was down to 1% due to a recession, the 9/11 attacks, and a war in The Middle East.

The rate was then back up to 5.25% by June of 2006.

It then was down to 1% again by the end of Bush’s term, mostly due to another recession, the housing crisis, bank failures and the bank bailout.

On December 11, 2007, the rate dropped from 4.5% to 4.25%

January 22, 2008, the rate then plummeted to 3.5%

Only eight day later, on January 30, 2008, the rate went down to 3%

On March 18, 2008, the rate dropped to 2.25%

On April 30, 2008, the rate fell to 2%

On October 8, 2008, it fell to 1.5%

Twenty-one days later, on October 29, 2008, the rate dropped to 1%

After Barack Obama was elected president, on December 16, 2008, the rate went to .25%

Note: .25% is the lowest funds rate possible.

Then, for the following 7 YEARS, or basically most of the “Obama years,” the federal interest rate sat there at .25%! For 7 YEARS!!!

It wasn’t until December of 2015 that they managed to raise the rate to .5%.

The rate stayed at .5% all of 2016 until Donald Trump won the election, at which time the rate immediately went up to .75%.

So, even though all of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” financial “experts” were predicting a stock market crash if Donald Trump won, and all kinds of other economic misfortune, The Federal Reserve felt it was a good time to raise the federal interest rate.

Interesting. Ponder that for a moment.

Then over the next two years of the Trump Presidency, The Fed chooses to raise the rate 6 more times, all the way back to 2.25%!

On March 16, 2017, the rate goes to 1%

On June 15, 2017, we’re up to 1.25%

On December 14, 2017, the rate goes up to 1.5%

On March 22, 2018, it climbs to 1.75

On Jun 14, 2018, 2%

On September 27, 2018, 2.25%

And on December 19, 2018, The Fed raised it another .25 to 2.5%

“The economy continues to punch well above its weight,” said Steve Rick, chief economist at CUNA Mutual Group. “Although trade tensions and tariffs continue to present uncertainty, the economy has been running red-hot for a long time…”

Is that what you call “a long time” Mr. Rick, a little over a year?

It seems these economists and know-it-all eggheads are in quite a hurry to slow our economy down.

Why?

Why was it OK for Americans to sit through all of these down times for close to two decades, but then when we finally turn it around they want to throw down all of these speed bumps?

What do you think? Is it a case of “the swamp’s” willingness to sabotage the country for the sake of their own survival and desire for power?

I’m thinking that is the case, but then again, I’m becoming more and more cynical by the day.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 26, 2018 0

I may not be the smartest guy in the world, but I do know the name of our next president won’t be “Beto!”

According to Alex Seitz-Wald of NBC News, “An early straw poll of members of the progressive group MoveOn.org shows a wide-open competition for liberal voters in the 2020 Democratic presidential contest, with Rep. Beto O’Rourke narrowly beating out former Vice President Joe Biden.”

First of all, calling the group MoveOn.org “progressive” is like calling the Flat Earth Society “progressive.”

MoveOn.org is a group of liberals who haven’t had a politically “progressive” thought in their lives.

Second of all, the number one vote getter was actually Mr./Mrs./Ms./Mx./M?. “I don’t know yet” or Mr./Mrs./Ms./Mx./M?. “Someone not listed here as an option.” This was represented by 28.8% of their vote.

Other than that, out of the 30 potential candidates listed, the results were:

Beto O’Rourke: 15.6 percent

Joe Biden: 14.9 percent

Bernie Sanders: 13.1 percent

Kamala Harris: 10 percent

Elizabeth Warren: 6.4 percent

Sherrod Brown: 2.9 percent

Amy Klobuchar: 2.8 percent

Michael Bloomberg: 2.7 percent

Cory Booker: 2.6 percent

Didn’t understand the question: .2 percent

It’s another sign of O’Rourke’s surprising popularity among national Democrats.

It makes perfect “liberal sense.” The person can’t even beat Ted Cruz in Texas for a Senate seat, but he’d be a good choice for the democrat candidate for president though.

It’s still early yet, but MoveOn endorsed Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary. That year, 78 percent of MoveOn members voted to back Sanders over Hillary Clinton.

I have to give MoveOn credit for not supporting Mrs. Clinton (Satan’s grandmother), but on the other hand, I have to question their support for Bernie’s overtly socialist agenda.

“While the race for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president remains wide open and MoveOn’s endorsement is up for grabs, MoveOn members and progressives across the country are clear: They’re looking for candidates who will rally voters around a progressive vision of building a country where every American can thrive, whether we’re white, black, or brown, rich or poor,” said Ilya Sheyman, executive director of MoveOn Political Action.

Translation: They’re looking for candidates who can get enough votes to win. They would prefer a candidate with a socialist agenda, who will punish those who are successful, while redistributing the wealth so that everyone can enjoy a standard of living barely above the poverty level.

“We’ll be challenging prospective candidates to inspire us with big ideas in the months to come, including at a series of events in early voting states in early 2019,” Sheyman added.

Translation: They’ll be challenging prospective candidates to inspire them with outrageously stupid ideas that Kool-Aide drinking liberals across the country will happily gulp down.

Alex Seitz-Wald adds that, “MoveOn, which was founded back during Bill Clinton’s presidency, is one of the largest progressive online organizing groups with millions of members across the country, so its endorsement has been coveted in the past.”

Let the race begin to see who can be the wackiest lefty liberal who could still get elected.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 19, 2018 0

I’m calling out some of these business “experts” and their “trumped-up” (no pun intended) predictions of “doom and gloom” for 2019.

I’ve been seeing more and more of these “doom and gloom” business “experts,” financial “experts,” and economic “experts” calling for an economic slowdown in 2019, and even a recession in some cases!

The backgrounds of these “doom and gloomers” is across the board, so their motivations for these predictions are all different as well.

“Experts” from the “biased, liberal, fake news media” are of course trying to set-up a self-fulfilling prophecy for their own political benefit; the country be damned.

Some “experts” are just trying to be contrarian in order to stand out.

Some “experts” are just plain confused, and they are over-analyzing the economy in general.

And some “experts” really aren’t experts at all, and they’re just wrong.

Just to name a few, we’ve got Henry Fernandez of Fox Business News claiming, “The US economy will likely fall into a recession next year.”

We’ve got, Charles Schwab’s, Liz Ann Sonders, claiming, “The U.S. economy will likely fall into a recession next year.”

Kevin Kelleher of FORTUNE reminds us that, “2018 has been a banner year for economic growth,” (thank you for stating the obvious Kevin) but that “according to many economists,” “2019 will bring an economic slowdown with a recession possible in 2020.”

Benjamin Fearnow (aptly named) of Newsweek (“Weak News”) says, “CFOs predict 2019 recession, majority expect pre-2020 market crash!” Mr. Fearnow goes on to say that, “An overwhelming majority of U.S. chief financial officers say the economy will sink into a recession by the end of President Donald Trump’s first term in 2020, and about half say it will happen next year.”

Wow! So in this case, we’ve doubled down and are going “all in” on an actual “market collapse!” I’d like to see a list of these CFOs that gave their input on this. I’m not so sure that CFOs (Chief Financial Officers) are the right ones to be getting this information from in the first place. CFOs typically don’t make company policy, they bookkeep it.

“The end is near for the near-decade-long burst of global economic growth,” said John Graham, a finance professor at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and director of the survey, in a statement. “The U.S. outlook has declined; moreover, the outlook is even worse in many other parts of the world, which will lead to softer demand for U.S. goods.”

The “decade-long burst of global economic growth” referred to here was at the expense of The United States I’m afraid, Mr. Graham, and we weren’t an economic recipient of “that” growth, we subsidized it.

Economist Peter Schiff said that “We won’t be able to call it a recession, it’s going to be worse than the Great Depression…, the U.S. economy is in so much worse shape than it was a decade ago.”

“Worse than the Great Depression?!” Really Mr. Schiff? You aren’t any relation to democrat congressman Adam Schiff are you? Because if you were, that would explain your propensity for the absurd.

“Bloomberg” economics writer, Jeanna Smialek’s chose to go with the headline, “JPMorgan, Bank of America Detect Hints of a U.S. Recession Looming in 2019,” even though her article points out, “Wall Street’s biggest banks are scouring U.S. data for signals of an impending recession. On balance, they’ve been finding that a 2019 downturn still isn’t likely…”

Ms. Smialek would seem fall into the “Experts from the “biased, liberal, fake news media,” who are trying to set-up a self-fulfilling prophecy for their own political agenda; the country be damned” group.

The resident “experts” on CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC have all, of course, chimed in with their predictions of demise regarding anything Trump related.

This list could go on, but you get the idea I’m sure.

Now, I, admittedly am no economics expert, but I have two eyes, a relatively functional brain, and some common sense.

Here is my take on the U.S.’s economy for 2019 and into 2020.

But first, a little historical perspective.

The economy started to improve immediately in December of 2016 and into 2017 after President Trump was elected, and that was just based on the expectations of the impact of his actions.

The President’s only real actions in 2017 had to do with the reduction of regulations and the signing into law of The Trump tax cut and tax reform plan. The new law would not begin to offer any real benefits to people or to companies until 2018.

In 2018 individuals were able to keep a little more of their own money due to tax cuts, and business were more easily able to invest their own money in improvements and expansion with drastically reduced capital gains tax penalties.

So in all reality, the United States economy is really only showing the benefits of the new tax laws and some reworked trade policies for about the last six months.

That bring us to 2019.

MrEricksonRules is predicting that 2019 will be an excellent year, economically, for The United States!

2019 will be the year that people see the real benefit of the new tax cuts law. Families across the country will pay thousands less in taxes and/or get thousands more back. This can only help stimulate the economy even more in the second and third quarters of 2019.

Although many of these “experts” see President Trumps “tariff wars” as economic negatives, I can only see them being a positive thing for our economy. I see businesses across the board beginning to reap the benefits of the new USAMC trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, and the same goes especially for the new agreements with China.

Also, as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, and a recent directing Executive Order, President Trump is encouraging long-term investments in low-income urban and rural communities nationwide. The Opportunity Zones program provides a tax incentive for investors, which should also help to stimulate the economy in whole new areas. It also directs government entities to prioritize these zones for expenditures as well.

2019 will also see record revenues for the federal government, due to the booming economy and the increase in the number of taxpayers overall. These revenues may help us to avoid increasing the federal deficit and possibly even work on bringing the deficit down. At this point I would settle for just a slowing of the amount we owe.

So, based on my “expertise,” I would tend to disagree with most of these so-called “experts.”

I would go as far to say that 2020 will just build off of 2019, and that President Trump will be running for re-election having orchestrated the most impressive economic turn around and economic run since Ronald Reagan in the early 80’s.

Larry Kudlow, who is serving as president of the National Economic Council under President Trump, seems to agree with me, when he says, “In my personal view, our administration’s view, recession is so far in the distance I can’t see it,” Kudlow said. “The basic economy has reawakened and it’s gonna stay there…, I mean, I’m reading some of the weirdest stuff, how a recession is around the corner. It’s nonsense.”

I think The President would second that notion as well.

Regarding the Stock Market, I believe there is still a lot of value to be had there. I feel the Market remains undervalued at this point.

Paul Dietrich of FOX Business feels the same way I do. He goes on to say, “There seems to be a new “fear of the day” knocking down the stock market. Chinese trade talks, Brexit, government shutdowns, Fed rate hikes, inverted yield curves or Trump’s tweets all seem to be culprits in this conspiracy to drive down the stock market. None of these issues have any significant impact on the underlying U.S. economy.”

Overall, The Market will continue to bounce up and down, but also maintain its positive general momentum.

Remember, however, that what’s good for Wall Street is not necessarily what’s good for Main Street.

In 2019 and 2020, we’ll take a look back and see how I did versus “the experts.”

If any of the media outlets want to contact me at some point regarding business and economic prospectives, you can do so via the “contact” feature on my blog website.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 18, 2018 0

“It’s tough to make predictions…, especially about the future.” – New York Yankee great, Yogi Berra

Ha! That’s right, Yogi! But I’m going to take a crack at it anyway.

Here a few of my latest political predictions about the next couple of years!

Despite the best efforts of the democrats, their “vision quest” and dream scenario of impeaching President Trump will not be realized. No matter how much the democrats want this to happen, the fact of the matter is there is no “there” there. The democrats actually end up hurting themselves as they trigger what an abuse of most Americans’ sense of fair play.

Robert Mueller’s “investigation” will still be going on up to the 2020 election, because unless he can come up with some charges against President Trump, which he won’t, the “investigation/witch hunt” is valuable as a distraction and as a talking point against the Trump Presidency. In “the swamp’s” eyes, it’s better to have The President under investigation than not.

I predict the democrats’ candidate for president will have to have the backing of former President Obama, so that means Joe Biden, because Obama is really only interested in promoting his legacy. Biden’s running mate will probably be Senator Corey Booker. Although Bernie Sanders will have quite a bit of carry-over support from 2016, and the support of all of the unapologetic socialists, he will not have the support of “the democrat establishment,” otherwise known as “the swamp.” Once again, Bernie will bow to his masters and accept his fate. What about Hillary? Hillary would only be a back-up plan should Biden not be able to run or decides not to for some reason. In this case, Bernie’s odds would go way up.

President Trump’s re-election in 2020, along with the Republicans taking back control of The House, and expanding their control in The Senate, will put an end to the Mueller “investigation.” The election will be considered a referendum on the “investigation,” and Mueller and his efforts will be terminated by the Attorney General, whoever that may be at the time.

The democrat’s level of cheating during the 2020 election will reach epic proportions. It will shake the foundations of our country. It will be all hands on deck for the democrats and anything goes to defeat President Trump. Despite up to 10% of the democrat vote being fraudulent, President Trump will still prevail. This election will usher in dramatic voting reforms. Please refer to my blog from November 15, 2018, titled, “If the American people lose confidence in the integrity of our election system, we are one big step closer to our republic dissolving right before our eyes.”

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign spent a record $1.2 billion dollars! We now know that approximately 20-25% of this money came from foreign governments and foreign entities. Please refer to my blog from October 27, 2017, titled, “Bill & Hillary’s amazing money machine!” The amount of foreign money pouring into the 2020 election on the Democrats behalf will eclipse the figures of 2016 and the amounts will be unprecedented. There are many, many countries that stand to benefit economically and monetarily if some of President Trump’s economic and trade policies can be reversed or manipulated in their favor. This too will actually end up hurting the democrats, as this will also trigger an additional abuse of what most Americans’ see as fair play.

Well, there you have it!

Let the games begin!

And remember you heard it here first!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 18, 2018 1

The FBI missed its deadline to provide documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the “FBI’s whistleblower raid.” This was the easiest prediction of the year.

Yes, the Justice Department and FBI missed their deadline to provide information about the government’s mysterious raid on a former FBI contractor’s home last month.

If you check out my blog from December 6, 2018 titled “The KGB…, oops I mean the FBI is at it again!” you’ll see that I said,

“The documents in question allegedly show that federal officials failed to investigate possible criminal activity related to Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, the Russian nuclear company whose subsidiary purchased Uranium One in 2013.”

“No one will ever see or hear of those documents again, unless Mr. Cain was wise enough to have created duplicates and dispersed them to multiple locations.”

“Grassley has given Wray [the FBI Director] and Horowitz [the department of Justice Inspector General] until Dec. 12, 2018 to respond.”

“Anybody want to bet they ignore that deadline?”

“Anybody want to bet they ignore the request entirely?”

Let’s recap exactly what happened here.

Back in November, sixteen FBI agents (Do you that was enough agents?) raided the home of Dennis Nathan Cain. Mr. Cain reportedly gave the Justice Department’s Inspector General (IG) documents related to the Uranium One controversy, the potential wrongdoing by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the bureau’s failure to investigate Hillary Clinton.

The documents in question (known as the “Uranium One” documents) allegedly showed that federal officials failed to investigate possible criminal activity related to Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, a Russian nuclear company.

Cain’s lawyer, Michael Socarras, told The Daily Caller the agent who led the raid accused his client of possessing stolen federal property. In response, Cain reportedly claimed he was a protected whistleblower under federal law, and said he was recognized as such by Horowitz.

This wasn’t anything the FBI wasn’t already aware of Mr. Cain.

What is the FBI hoping to accomplish by keeping the American people in the dark? They’re hoping to cover their asses, the DOJ’s asses, Hillary’s backside, along with former President Obama and all of his stooges.

Questioning whether “we now live in a secret police state,” Cain took his frustration about the situation to Twitter earlier this week.

Note: The answer to his question apparently has to be “yes.”

“So I blow the whistle on the FBI, get raided by the same FBI, and now they want to keep the FBI’s reasons secret? Do we now live in a secret police state? Feels a little like 1984,” Cain tweeted.

“As frustrating and violating as this feels to me and my family. I will continue to put my trust in God. Someday this life will pass away. I will stand before my maker with a clean conscience and Jesus as my defender. Until then I continue to fight the good fight with God’s help,” Cain tweeted.

The FBI consistently has refused Fox News’ request for comment on the whistleblower raid and the Judiciary Committee’s requests. An FBI spokesperson told Fox News the agency would respond only to inquiries from the entity that requested the documents, in this case, the Judiciary Committee.

Oh, you mean the same FBI that refuses to respond to the Judiciary Committee’s request in the first place? Sounds legit…, not!

And we also have to ask ourselves why Fox News the only news organization requesting any comments from the FBI and the DOJ about this whole mess?

We all know the answer to that question don’t we? It’s the old “biased, liberal, fake news media” tactic that says, “If we don’t acknowledge something happened, then it didn’t happen.” It’s propaganda by omission.

It’s also “the swamp” looking after its own.

In a related topic, my blog from January 2, 2018 addresses the question, “What happens when the investigators need to be investigated?”

Thanks to Fox News’ Gregg Re, Samuel Chamberlain and Brooke Singman for contributing to this article.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 17, 2018 1

Oh Mika you’re so fine (dumb), you’re so fine (dumb) you blow my mind, hey Mika, hey Mika!

MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ co-host, Mika Brzezinski, apologized for using a homophobic slur when describing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as a “butt-boy.”

Our “oh so politically correct” Comrade Brzezinski took issue with Pompeo’s recent comments to Fox News regarding Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s involvement in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, according to Fox News’ Brian Flood.

“Why doesn’t Mike Pompeo care right now?” Brzezinski asked. “Are the pathetic deflections that we just heard when he appeared on ‘Fox and Friends,’ is that a patriot speaking, or a wannabe dictator’s butt-boy? I’m dead serious. I’m asking, are these the words of a patriot?”

Say what?!

Let me try and put my response in Comrade Brzezinski’s own words.

Why doesn’t Mika Brzezinski care right now, I’m asking? Is the pathetic homophobic slur we just heard when she appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” is that a responsible nation-wide news show host talking, or a wannabe cable news network’s snarky bitch? I’m dead serious. I’m asking, are these the words of a responsible nation-wide news show host?

Ya, that about covers it.

Brian Flood goes on to say that, “A viewer took to Twitter, calling the remark ‘as homophobic a term as I’ve heard on national morning television,’ noting that MSNBC did not include the slur in its closed captioning. ‘Maybe don’t equate homosexuality with Mike Pompeo carrying water for the murderous regime in Saudi Arabia,’ the viewer wrote.”

Brzezinski agreed (How could she not?) and quoted the tweet while offering an apology. She also apologized to Senator Dick Durbin, who was on set at the time.

“SUPER BAD choice of words,” she wrote. “I should have said ‘water boy’… like for football teams or something like that… apologize to @SenatorDurbin too! SO SORRY!”

You know what Mika? You sit there every morning with your little “butt-boy” (your words not mine) Joe Scarborough, with your “holier than thou” and your “more PC than thou” attitude, and then you spout out this kind of stuff?

You batter President Trump on a daily basis, calling him a racist, a misogynist, an islamaphobe and a homophobe, but you’re the one actually saying this stuff.

Of course according to you, in your case, it’s just a “super bad choice of words.”

Actually it’s not. Actually it’s a glimpse into your true persona.

“If it was a Conservative that said what ‘crazed’ Mika Brzezinski stated on her show yesterday, using a certain horrible term, that person would be banned permanently from television,” President Trump tweeted. “She will probably be given a pass, despite their terrible ratings.”

According to Brian Flood, “MSNBC did not immediately respond when asked if the network condones or plans to do anything about Brzezinski’s comment.”

Of course, Comrade Brzezinski isn’t the first MSNBC star to make homophobic remarks.

We also have sista’ Joy Reid who claimed hateful and anti-gay rhetoric on her blog was planted by “diabolical hackers,” a claim that quickly fell apart. Reid had even said she reported the hacking “crime” to the FBI. She eventually “kinda-sorta” admitted writing homophobic slurs.

So technically, we’d have to identify her as a lying homophobe, not just a homophobe.

“Back in April, Reid got emotional on the air and admitted it seemed unlikely she was hacked, but that she didn’t recall making the offensive remarks, for which she apologized anyway,” Flood added.

“I genuinely do not believe I wrote those hateful things,” Reid told her viewers (all 3 of them), adding, “The person I am now is not the person I was then.”

Joy Reid displays the typical level of liberal confusion, shared by many of her “biased, fake news media” cohorts. She is in self-denial and unable to hold herself accountable for her own words while crucifying others for their words.

MSNBC has stood by sista’ Reid and she continues to host a show on the network.

“The only thing worse than a liar is a liar that’s also a hypocrite!” – Tennessee Williams

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 14, 2018 1

It seems the Central American “refugees’” need for “political asylum” is now negotiable.

As we have seen “ad nauseam” in the news recently, we have gigantic “caravans” of migrants from Central America, attempting to forcibly enter The United States through Mexico.

We have also seen that their attempt to barge into America seems to have stalled in Tijuana, on the Mexican side of the border.

If they are successful in illegally crossing the border, and if they are caught, they must be freed into our communities for a later court hearing date which 96% of these people don’t show up for.

The other possibility is requesting political asylum at a designated Port of Entry.

The reason the migrants want to avoid having to do this is that the inspections officers have the power to quickly find them inadmissible and deport them. In this case they will not be allowed to return for five years. This can happen if an inspector believes that the person is making a misrepresentation of the truth. This quick deportation procedure is known as “summary exclusion.”

But here is what we are really talking about.

There is an exception to the summary exclusion process for people who fear persecution and request asylum. So, even if you do not have the proper documents or you have made a misrepresentation, you could still be allowed to enter the U.S. if you make clear that your reason is to apply for asylum and you can show that you’d be likely to win an asylum case.

After you have said you want to apply for asylum, you’ll immediately be given a “credible fear” interview by an asylum officer. The purpose of this interview is to make sure you have a significant possibility of winning your case. Most importantly, the officer will want to be sure that your request is based on a fear of persecution. This interview is supposed to be scheduled quickly, within one or two days.

If the officer isn’t convinced of your fear, you must request a hearing before an immigration judge. If you don’t, you will be deported from the U.S., and not be allowed to return for five years. The judge must hold the hearing within seven days, either in person or by telephone.

If the judge finds that you have a credible fear of persecution, you’ll be scheduled for a full hearing. In that case, you should seek an attorney. This proceeding will take place in Immigration Court, before a judge, and with an attorney representing the Department of Homeland Security.

The right of asylum is an ancient juridical concept, under which a person persecuted by one’s own country may be protected by another sovereign authority, such as another country or church official, who in medieval times could offer sanctuary.

Political asylum, specifically, is the protection granted by a nation to someone who has left their native country as a political refugee.

Supposedly, political asylum is what the majority of these migrants are seeking in The United States.

According to The San Diego Union-Tribune, “Two groups of Central American migrants marched to the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana with a list of demands, with one group delivering an ultimatum to the Trump administration: either let them in the U.S. or pay them $50,000 each to go home.”

Why do these people feel they are in any position to make demands on anyone, let alone The President of The United States?! And $50,000 each? These people are hilarious!

“Alfonso Guerreo Ulloa, an organizer from Honduras, said the $50,000 figure was chosen as a group.”

Oh, the fact they “chose this figure as a group” makes it much more reasonable!

“It may seem like a lot of money to you,” Ulloa told the paper. “But it is a small sum compared to everything the United States has stolen from Honduras.”

Soooo you want us to give you political asylum, but in the same breath you’re accusing us of stealing from your home country of Honduras?

Brilliant! We are all now just a little stupider for having listened to you.

“He said the money would allow the migrants to return home and start a small business.”

Wait a minute! I thought you were coming here with claims of being politically persecuted in Honduras, but now they will let you come back and start a small business and everything will be fine?

Just to let Alfonso and all of you “refugees” know, you’re not helping your cause at all right now.

In fact you are making it very apparent that your motivation for coming to our country is for the money and economic opportunity, not because you are political refugees, just like President Trump has stated many times.

We are throwing a party for all of the “caravaners,” however! We’re featuring visas and long walks back to where you came from…, and we’re all out of visas!

Adios amigos!

WINNING!

Louis Casiano of Fox News contributed to this article.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 13, 2018 0

Category: liberals

So the “biased, liberal, fake news media” now feels it is OK to belittle the education level of selected groups of voters?

WINNING! President Trump does it again!

When money talks, media bias walks!

Up and up The Fed’s interest rate goes, where it’ll stop nobody knows!

I may not be the smartest guy in the world, but I do know the name of our next president won’t be “Beto!”

I’m calling out some of these business “experts” and their “trumped-up” (no pun intended) predictions of “doom and gloom” for 2019.

“It’s tough to make predictions…, especially about the future.” – New York Yankee great, Yogi Berra

The FBI missed its deadline to provide documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the “FBI’s whistleblower raid.” This was the easiest prediction of the year.

Oh Mika you’re so fine (dumb), you’re so fine (dumb) you blow my mind, hey Mika, hey Mika!

It seems the Central American “refugees’” need for “political asylum” is now negotiable.

Subscribe to Blog via Email