Category: politics

Is it Nancy (the sky is falling) Pelosi and (Up) Chuck Schumer…, or maybe “Mork and Mindy?”  How about “Beavis and Butthead?”

Andrea Park of “W” for Yahoo Politics reported that, “Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) crowded around one podium to offer the Democrat Party’s rebuttal to President Donald Trump’s prime-time address concerning the government shutdown and his proposed border wall.”

“Wherever you land on the political spectrum, there’s no denying that Schumer and Pelosi’s stern rebuttal to Trump channeled the feeling of two parents standing side by side and chastising their trouble-making teen, a comparison that was made many times over in the flood of memes the Democrat response sparked online.”

Again, a “meme” is a humorous image that is copied (often with slight variations or enhancements) and spread rapidly by Internet users.

schumer pelosi

“Elsewhere in this deluge were approximately one billion tweets [ONE BILLION tweets!], likening the disapproving duo to Grant Wood’s 1930 artwork “American Gothic,” as well as only slightly less repetitive comparisons to The Scooby-Doo Show villains, Madame Tussauds’s wax figures, those ubiquitous AAG reverse mortgage commercials, and SNL’s Bobbie and Marty Culp.  Pelosi and Schumer were also offered up as prospective Oscars hosts, …as the Fiji Water girl from the Golden Globes somehow snuck into the background of their speech.”

schumer and pelosi

It was funny that someone apparently thought it was a good idea for the two of them to squeeze behind the same podium.  And you couldn’t tell they were reading from a teleprompter at all!!!

Their partnership will go down in history, no doubt, right alongside Sonny and Cher, Archie and Edith, Herman and Lilly, Al and Peggy and Lucy and Desi.

“Nancy…, you got some ‘splainin’ to do!”

“Oh, Chuckie!”

You really can’t make this stuff up.

 

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.

pelosi schumer

 

 

 

0

Crisis?  What crisis?

A “crisis” (from the Greek κρίσις – krisis) is any event that is going (or is expected) to lead to an unstable and dangerous situation affecting an individual, group, community, or whole society.

Fact: More Americans will die from drugs this year than were killed in the entire Vietnam War.

Fact: Our southern border with Mexico is a pipeline that permits vast quantities of illegal drugs, including meth, heroin, cocaine and fentanyl to enter our country illegally.

Fact: Every week, 300 of our citizens are killed by heroin alone.

Fact: 90 percent of the heroin in our country came across our southern border.

Fact: Last month, 20,000 migrant children were illegally brought into the United States.  These children are used as human pawns by vicious smugglers and ruthless gangs.

Fact:  60,000 unaccompanied children crossed the border last year, a 25 percent increase.

Fact: One in three women are sexually assaulted on the dangerous trek up through Mexico. Women and children are the biggest victims by far of our broken system.

Fact: The cost of dealing with the effects of illegal drugs exceeds $500 billion dollars a year in the United States.

Facts according to a study released in 2011 by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) reported on incarcerations, arrests and costs of criminal immigrants (gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf):

The number of criminal illegal immigrants in federal prisons in 2010 was about 55,000; the number incarcerated in state prison systems and local jails was approximately 296,000 for the year 2009.

Based on the GAO’s sample of criminal immigrants, it’s estimated that the study population of these 249,000 criminals had actually been previously arrested around 1.7 million times, averaging about seven arrests per person. That translated into a half-million drug related offenses, 70,000 sexual offenses, 213,000 assaults, 125,000 arrests for larceny/theft and 25,000 homicides.

The makeup of those criminal immigrants incarcerated in federal prisons: 68 percent were citizens of Mexico and almost 90 percent were from one of seven Latin American countries: Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Cuba and the Dominican Republic.

The GAO study states the cost to incarcerate these criminal illegal immigrants in federal prisons and for federal reimbursements to states and localities ranged from about $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion annually, 2005-2009.

According to Victor Davis Hanson, a scholar at the Hoover Institution, the 30,000 illegal immigrants behind bars in California alone costs the state $1 billion annually. In addition, the state spends another $10 billion annually in entitlements for illegal immigrants.

And remember, all of these numbers are from 7-8 years ago.  We can only expect that these numbers have increased on a yearly basis, and are quite worse by now.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “In 2013, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) freed 36,007 convicted criminal aliens from detention who were awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings. Many of the 36,007 convicted criminal aliens freed from ICE custody had multiple convictions including: 193 homicide convictions; 426 sexual assault convictions; 303 kidnapping convictions; 1,075 aggravated assault convictions; 1,160 stolen vehicle convictions; 9,187 dangerous drug convictions; 16,070 drunk or drugged driving convictions; and 303 flight escape convictions.” (cis.org/ICE-Document-Details-36000-Criminal-Aliens-Release-in-2013)

U.S. Census data shows that the overall population of immigrants is at an all-time high of 41.3 million. As many as 8 million immigrants have entered the United States since President Obama came into office, including 2.5 million illegally, either by crossing the border or overstaying their visa.

So, do we have a crisis on our hands?

Remember, a “crisis” is any event that is going (or is expected) to lead to an unstable and dangerous situation affecting an individual, group, community, or whole society.

Any reasonable person would have to say the answer to that question is “YES,” we have a national security, humanitarian, social, economic and public safety crisis on our hands, and President Trump has stated as much.

“Over the last several years, I’ve met with dozens of families whose loved ones were stolen by illegal immigration,” President Trump added. I’ve held the hands of the weeping mothers and embraced the grief-stricken fathers.  So sad.  So terrible.  I will never forget the pain in their eyes, the tremble in their voices, or the sadness gripping their souls. How much more American blood must be shed before Congress does its job?”

After President Trump’s address to the nation, in which he asked for a paltry $5.7 billion dollars help secure our southern border with some kind of barrier or wall, Senator Charles Schumer from New York and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi gave the Democrat response on the issue.

Pelosi and Schumer, basically condemned Trump’s words and what they called his “obsession” with building a border wall.

“President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage, must stop manufacturing a crisis and must reopen the government,” Pelosi said.

Manufacturing a crisis?

Manufacturing a crisis?

Have you been listening, Nancy?  Have you looked at the numbers?  Have you seen the pictures of “the caravan” in Tijuana, Mexico, and at the border?

President Trump has brought manufacturing back to America, but he doesn’t need to do any manufacturing here.  The facts are out there for everyone to plainly see.

“Much of what we have heard from President Trump throughout this senseless shutdown has been full of misinformation and even malice,” Pelosi, standing next to Schumer, charged. “The President has chosen fear.  We want to start with the facts.”

No Nancy, the President has not chosen fear, he has chosen to address the reality and the seriousness of the situation, as opposed to kicking this political football down the road once more.

“The fact is: On the very first day of this Congress, House Democrats passed Senate Republican legislation to re-open government and fund smart, effective border security solutions,” Pelosi said, referring to bills that did not include funding for Trump’s border wall.

The “smart, effective border security solutions” that you and Chuck support, Nancy, are all good, but they are all reactive and not proactive.  Drones and other types of electronic surveillance will produce nice pictures of illegal immigrants running across the border, but they are not going to stop anybody.  A physical barrier or wall will.  Walls work.

“But, the president is rejecting these bipartisan bills which would re-open government, over his obsession with forcing American taxpayers to waste billions of dollars on an expensive and ineffective wall, a wall he always promised Mexico would pay for,” Pelosi continued.

The President, during his address, emphasized that the wall “would very quickly pay for itself,” and added that “the wall will also be paid for, indirectly, by the great new trade deal we have made with Mexico.”

Schumer and Pelosi seemed to think that federal employees missing a paycheck or two during the shutdown was more of a crisis than hundreds of families who have lost loved ones at the hands of illegal immigrants in our country.

These federal employees will get back pay.  These poor families will not get their sons, daughters, wives and husbands back.

“The symbol of America should be the Statue of Liberty, not a thirty-foot wall,” Schumer concluded.

Yes, Senator Schumer, “The symbol of America should be the Statue of Liberty,” but I’m afraid the symbol right now is of an illegal immigrant jumping over a pathetic 6 foot fence and breaking into our country.

Responding to Pelosi’s widely reported comment that a wall would be “immoral,” President Trump concluded his address by saying, “Some have suggested a barrier is immoral.  Then why do wealthy politicians build walls, fences and gates around their homes? They don’t build walls because they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside.”

According to Marc A. Thiessen for The Washington Post, “Trump won the night.  Schumer and Pelosi lost.”

Thiessen added that, “Speaking from the Oval Office for the first time during his presidency, Trump embraced our country’s tradition as a nation of immigrants, declaring ‘America proudly welcomes millions of lawful immigrants who enrich our society and contribute to our nation.’ He then offered a cogent explanation why he believes we face what he called ‘a humanitarian crisis, a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul’ along our southern border.”

“He laid out his solution, which he explained were ‘developed by law enforcement professionals and border agents’ and includes funds for cutting-edge technology, more border agents, more immigration judges, more bed space and medical support, and $5.7 billion for a ‘physical barrier’ that he called ‘just common sense.’”

“The president did not unilaterally declare a national emergency. Instead, he called for compromise and said, ‘To those who refuse to compromise in the name of border security, I would ask: imagine if it was your child, your husband, or your wife, whose life was so cruelly shattered and totally broken?’”

“He was, in short, presidential.”

“Pelosi and Schumer failed to use the one word that millions of Americans were longing to hear, compromise.  But Trump did.  That is why the president won the night.  Schumer and Pelosi appealed to their base, while Trump made an effective appeal to persuadable Americans.”

“Until now, Trump has owned the 18-day government shutdown that prompted this address, because he’s the one who started it.  But if Democrats continue to attack him, and won’t entertain any compromise, soon the shutdown will be all theirs, because they’re the ones who have refused to end it.”

Radio and TV talk show host Mark Levin called Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer “pathological liars” and “scam artists” following their response to President Trump’s Oval Office address on the border wall.

“Let’s keep a few things in mind when you watch Schumer and Pelosi, they are pathological liars,” he continued. “They have been in Congress over half a century. What the hell have they done about the border? They are part of the scam artists. They get amnesty, legalization, citizenship, and never secure the border.”

Democrats are well known for not letting facts get in the way of a good political argument, and this argument is no exception.

But in the end, we ARE dealing with a real “crisis” here and it is way past due that we effectively and realistically deal with it.

 

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.

wall addresses

 

 

0

What is a “Republican,” and what is a “Conservative,” and is President Trump either one?  

I would suggest that the terms “republican” and “conservative” are moving targets.

When President Trump was running for president, it was pretty apparent that “the establishment republicans” didn’t consider him “a republican,” and the “establishment conservatives” didn’t consider him a “conservative.”

President Trump ran under the mantle of “a republican” within the Republican Party, but definitely was not a member of “the club.”

And people supported Donald Trump for the 2016 election for just that reason.  Many Americans wanted someone who wasn’t a member of the establishment politician’s “club.”  I believe people voted for Donald Trump because of his ideas and his intentions, without much regard for which party he ran under or how he was labeled.

Socially speaking, Donald Trump’s “anti-political correctness” stance naturally aligned him more with the Republican Party and the conservatives, however.

The terms “republican” and “conservative,” of course, mean different things to different people.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News contributor, also asked the question, “Is Trump a Republican?” and pointed out that President Trump, “chose to characterize himself as a conservative Republican; and nearly two years into his presidency, he continues to call himself that.”

Judge Napolitano goes on to say that, “A fair analysis of his presidency at its current mid-point gives rise in my mind, and I suggest it should in yours, to serious questions about his fidelity to any conservative principles. Trump is the president who attacks the FBI almost every day, borrows a trillion dollars a year to run the government, has tried to re-write immigration laws on his own, has imposed tariffs on household goods for which Americans must pay up to 25 percent more than they previously were paying, suggested he could shut down the New York Times and CNN, insults foreign leaders whose alliances with the US are long and deep, bombed Syria without congressional authorization, sent troops to Syria then summarily ordered them home, threatened to reveal intelligence sources publicly, and continues to use drones to kill folks internationally.”

Wow!  Where did that come from and how do you really feel, Judge?

First of all, when someone leads off by saying this is going to be “a fair analysis,” it usually isn’t, and this is no exception.

Let’s analyze the Judge’s attacks, one mindless point at a time.

The Judge says, “Trump is the president who attacks the FBI almost every day…”

Have you been paying attention to the news at all Judge?  Do the names James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page conjure up any reason to attack the FBI?  Does the fraudulent Steele dossier, the FISA warrants that were obtained under false pretenses, and the “spying on” of the Trump campaign and the early Trump presidency possibly give The President any reason to be critical of the FBI?

The Judge complains that President Trump, “…, borrows a trillion dollars a year to run the government…”

And this is any different from Barrack Obama or George Bush how?  No one else seems to be concerned about the deficit.  Why should he?  The “establishment conservatives” talk a good deficit concern game, but that’s as far as it goes…, talk.

Judge Napolitano claims that President Trump, “…, has tried to re-write immigration laws on his own…”

For a judge, you don’t seem to be very observant, Judge Napolitano.  Quite the contrary from your claim, President Trump is actually trying to follow the immigration laws on the books and work within his Constitutional rights as a president and commander in chief.  Perhaps you had him confused with former President Obama.

The Judge says that President Trump, “…, has imposed tariffs on household goods for which Americans must pay up to 25 percent more than they previously were paying…”

This is such a shallow-minded, short-sided and disingenuous remark to be coming from you, Judge.  You must be aware that The United States has been getting ripped-off by all of our trading partners for many years, and that from time to time we have to pay a little bit more as negotiations are taking place, before better trade deals are implemented (as with Canada and Mexico for example).  In the long run we will be much better off as a country.  Wait and see what the China talks bring.

Judge Napolitano asserts that President Trump, “…, suggested he could shut down the New York Times and CNN…”

This statement by the Judge is just a plain lie. President Trump has never said he could “shut down the New York Times and CNN.”  He has called these two news outlets “fake news,” which they are, but never claimed he could, or would, “shut them down.”

The Judge says President Trump, “…, insults foreign leaders whose alliances with the US are long and deep…”

President Trump does not “insult foreign leaders.”  He merely has let them know “there is a new sheriff in town,” and that we value being their ally, but not at the expense of the US at every turn.

“…, bombed Syria without congressional authorization…”

One, he doesn’t need congressional authorization to bomb anyone, and two he demonstrated he means what he says, unlike our prior, weak, president.

“…, sent troops to Syria then summarily ordered them home…”

What’s your point Judge?  Is this not within the prerogative of the Commander in Chief?  And are we just going to keep our soldiers planted out in the desert over there forever?

“…, threatened to reveal intelligence sources publicly…”

This is not really the case here, Judge.  Considering everything the FBI chose to redact in those “secret” documents, what he really threatened to do was reveal the FBI’s CYA operation, not any intelligence sources.

“… and continues to use drones to kill folks internationally.”

Really?  You want to go there?  I can’t recall hearing anything about any drones killing anyone since President Trump was elected, as opposed to Obama’s administration’s almost weekly bragging about the fact.

So there you have the complete deconstruction and refutation of Judge Andrew Napolitano’s “fair analysis” of President Trump’s action in office so far.

I must admit that Judge Napolitano has had me fooled for quite a while.  I apparently had mistaken him as a good natured, former judge, who lent his experience, knowledge and perspective to topics of the day, when in fact he turns out to be a “fake news,” “never Trumper!”

Shame on me, but thank you to the Judge for finally revealing himself.

So the real question here isn’t “Is Trump a Republican?”  It’s “Why isn’t Judge Napolitano working over at CNN?”

 

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.

judge napolitano

0

Way to represent Rashida Tlaib!  I’m sure you’re the toast of deranged liberals everywhere!

Freshman U.S. Representative Rashida Tlaib (a democrat from Michigan) didn’t waste any time calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump, just hours after being sworn into Congress.

But it’s not just that, it the manner in which she did it…, with such grace…, and with such decorum.

Speaking to a crowd of supporters last Thursday night, the Michigan Democrat, and one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress, said of Trump, “People love you and you win [referring to herself]. And when your son looks at you and says, ‘Momma, look you won. Bullies don’t win.’ And I said, ‘Baby, they don’t, because we’re gonna go in there and we’re gonna impeach the motherf***er.’”

Ms. Tlaib is such an idiot on so many levels that it’s hard to know where to begin…, but of course I’ll try!

Her being one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress is definitely noteworthy, and something for her and the Muslim community to be proud of.

That being said, she then took a left turn down “Pathetic” boulevard.

On her first day in Congress…, in her first few hours…, she was already out to impeach the President.

Then she follows it up by calling him a “motherf***er!”

And if that isn’t bad enough, she supposedly calls him this in a discussion with her son!

So basically in one day she managed to disgrace and embarrass herself as a member of Congress, as a Muslim, and as a mother.

Impressive!  I would say she has a bright future in the democrat party!

We should probably also remind our confused, brand new, congresswoman from Detroit, that to remove a sitting president, the Constitution requires a conviction of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

What exactly are you preparing to charge the President with, hurting your feelings?  Disagreeing with you?

The impeachment process would further require the consent of both the House and two-thirds of the Senate, which is still a Republican majority.

So what we’re talking about here is another waste of time, and I’m referring to the Mueller witch hunt, oops, I mean investigation, and another side show for the “biased, liberal, fake news media” to spin their propaganda on.

Nancy Pelosi, who was re-elected to Speaker of the House, said she isn’t ruling out impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, depending on findings by the special counsel investigating Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.

“We shouldn’t be impeaching for a political reason, and we shouldn’t avoid impeachment for a political reason,” she said.

Did she just contradict herself in the same sentence?  I think she did, but remember this is Nancy Pelosi here, so no big deal.

 

Thanks to Louis Casiano and Bradford Betz of Fox News and The Associated Press for contributing to this article.

 

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.

rashida tlaib

0

Liberal billionaire apologizes for funding effort to link Russians to Republicans.  “Well, all righty then!”

Well, all righty then…, as long as he apologized, right?

Wait…, what?!

According to Lukas Mikelionis of Fox News, “Democratic operatives created fake Russian “bots” to link “the Russians” to [republican candidate] Roy Moore in the recent Alabama senate election.”

Amazing.

CAN YOU EVEN IMAGINE HOW THIS STORY WOULD BE TREATED IF IT HAD BEEN A RICH CONSERVATIVE DOING THIS?  The “biased, liberal, fake news media” would have lost their minds.  But, since it was a rich liberal democrat, they just look the other way.  Another example of propaganda by omission or disregard.

Okay, so first of all, what exactly is a “bot?”

A “bot” is a particular type of software that is employed in social media networks (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) to automatically generate messages or in general advocate for certain ideas, support campaigns, and public relations either by acting as a “follower” or even as a fake account that gathers followers itself.  Currently, it is estimated that up to 15% of active Twitter accounts may be social bots.  “Social bots can generate convincing internet personas that are very capable of influencing real people.

Using social bots is against the terms of service of many platforms, especially Twitter and Instagram.  However many users, especially businesses, still automate their Instagram activity in order to gain real followers rather than buying fake ones. This is commonly done through third-party social automation companies.

Liberal Silicon Valley billionaire Reid Hoffman issued an apology for funding a group that falsely tried to give an impression the Russian government was supporting Alabama Republican Roy Moore in last year’s Senate election against the now elected Senator, democrat, Doug Jones.

Hoffman is the co-founder of “LinkedIn” (LinkedIn is a business and employment-oriented service that operates via websites and mobile apps. It is mainly used for professional networking, including employers posting jobs and job seekers posting information about themselves.

Reid Hoffman is also one of Silicon Valley’s top donors to Democrat campaigns and PACs.  In the last election cycle he donated $7 million to Democrat groups, though his money also pours into non-traditional groups that aren’t mandated to report their funding and often operate in the shadows.

One such group is American Engagement Technologies (AET). According to Mikelionis, AET is a firm run by former Obama appointee Mikey Dickerson, which received $750,000 from Hoffman and was part of the effort to falsely portray the Republican’s senate bid as being supported by the Kremlin.

Oh…, an “Obama appointee.”  Did you ever notice that when stuff like this pops up, these names associated with the miss deeds display the obvious incestuous liberal nature of “the swamp?”

“I find the tactics that have been recently reported highly disturbing. For that reason, I am embarrassed by my failure to track AET, the organization I did support, more diligently as it made its own decisions to perhaps fund projects that I would reject,” Hoffman said in a statement provided to the Washington Post.

Ya, AET, I am totally disturbed that you would allow yourself to get busted and implicate me on top of it!  That’s what he really means.

“I want to be unequivocal: there is absolutely no place in our democracy for manipulating facts or using falsehoods to gain political advantage,” he added.

Oh, you’re so noble Mr. Hoffman!  So tell me, what are you then, stupid, ignorant, incompetent, or a cheat and a liar?

Ding, ding, ding…, I think have a winner there with “a cheat and a liar!”

“Hoffman said AET went on to facilitate a secret project with a budget of $100,000.  One participant in the project was Jonathon Morgan, the chief executive of New Knowledge, a firm that wrote a report, released by the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this month, about Russia’s social media operations in the 2016 election and its efforts to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump.”

So, Mr. Jonathon Morgan, do you know Christopher Steele by chance?  I have a feeling that Mr. Morgan’s report is about as reputable as Mr. Steele’s fraudulent dossier.

Democratic operatives then created thousands of fake Russian accounts on Twitter and began following Moore, prompting attention from local and national media that falsely suggested Russia is backing Moore’s candidacy.

The project also involved creating a Facebook page and imitated conservative Alabamians who weren’t satisfied with the Republican candidate while encouraging others to write in another candidate.

In a statement on Twitter, Morgan denied the project was aimed at influencing the election, which the Democrat won by 22,000 votes. “I did not participate in any campaign to influence the public,” he wrote, saying the project goals weren’t about supporting the Jones campaign.

Deny, deny, deny.  Deflect, deflect, deflect.  You can’t deny that this is a strategy that works, especially when you have a cooperative “biased, liberal, fake news media” that will look the other way.

The disinformation campaign was first revealed by the New York Times that obtained an internal report detailing the efforts.

“We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet,” the internal report said.

The multi-million Senate Alabama race ended with Jones victory over the embattled Republican.  Doug Jones became the first Democratic senator from Alabama in more than 20 years.

Jones has since told Fox News that he’s “outraged” over the reports detailing the efforts to portray his opponent as backed by the Kremlin, calling for a federal investigation over the project (although not willing to discount the obviously influenced election results).

“I’d like to see the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department look at this to see if there were any laws being violated and, if there were, prosecute those responsible,” Jones said. “These authorities need to use this example right now to start setting the course for the future to let people know that this is not acceptable in the United States of America.”

Yes, we know Senator Jones, it’s not acceptable, although you’re not willing to discount the obviously influenced election results regarding your own election victory.

The daily hypocrisy, the daily examples of double standards, the almost daily revealing of questionable/illegal activity by liberals and democrats, is really hard to take some days.  But like I have said before, “the swamp” has our (the conservatives) full and undivided attention now, and you can’t just sweep this crap under the rug anymore like you had become accustomed to.

WINNING!

 

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.

putin donating

 

 

 

0

I’d love to be able to “regulate the content of speech.”  If it wasn’t for that darn Constitution!

The U.S. Representative for California’s 33rd congressional district (in the Los Angeles area), democrat, Ted Lieu, said he would “love to regulate the content of speech,” including that on Fox News, but he can’t do it because of the U.S. Constitution.

That darn old Constitution!

Lieu made the comments during an interview about the testimony of Google CEO Sundar Pichai at a House Judiciary Committee hearing during an interview with CNN host Brianna Keilar.

“… I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech.  The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that’s simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run it’s better the government does not regulate the content of speech,” Congressman Lieu continued.

I’m glad you feel that way congressman; since that is what allows you and your liberal friends to say the stupid things you do, not to mention you took an oath to uphold and protect The Constitution as an elected representative of the people.

Lieu added that, “Private companies should self-regulate their platforms and the government shouldn’t interfere.”

Stop the presses!  This would be the first thing that a democrat felt the government shouldn’t interfere with!  Although this statement does not seem consistent with his prior statements.

I think what he means is private companies, run by liberals, should be able to self-regulate their own platforms, as long as they are attacking conservatives.

Yes…, I’m sure that’s it.

After his remarks aired, Lieu came under fire on social media, prompting him to go on a Twitter spree to clarify his views, including that he would like to regulate Fox News.

One Twitter user had accused him of being “a poster child for tyranny.”

Lieu, of course, then had to tell us what we should have understood him to say, as he insisted that he was actually defending the First Amendment rather than showing his desire to regulate speech.

Oh I get it!  So it was like “opposite day” or something!

Maybe we should have interpreters standing alongside these liberals, translating what they really mean, like we have people translating their words into sign language for those who are hearing impaired!

“My whole point is that government officials always want to regulate speech,” Lieu added.

I really haven’t heard about any government officials wanting to regulate speech other than you, Mr. Lieu, and of course former President Obama regarding Fox News!

According to Lukas Mikelionis of Fox News, “Lieu has become somewhat of a foe of President Trump following his election, often taking to social media to throw jabs at the president.”

“He’s among the Democrats who’s been flirting with the idea of impeaching Trump over the perceived collusion between Russia and the campaign.  He also tried to kick-start earlier this year the impeachment process of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.”

Ok.  Well, that paints a clearer picture of Congressman Lieu now.

So what we have here is your typically confused and inept, liberal politician.

A year and a half ago, Lieu tweeted at President Trump, saying: “President” @realDonaldTrump: You truly are an evil man. Your job is to help Americans. Not intentionally try to destroy their lives. https://t.co/2M94E1g39b — Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) March 25, 2017

This was in response to President Trump’s tweet about Obamacare which said:

ObamaCare will explode and we will all get together and piece together a great healthcare plan for THE PEOPLE. Do not worry!  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 25, 2017

There we go again.  When liberals can’t win an argument intellectually, they resort to name calling and labeling.  Who the “evil one” is and who was trying to “destroy lives,” is definitely a matter of opinion.

Congressman Lieu then tweeted:

Mr. “President”: Art II of Constitution requires you to faithfully execute laws passed by Congress. Subverting #Obamacare violates your Oath https://t.co/2M94E1g39b — Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) March 25, 2017

Excuse me Congressman Lieu, but wasn’t it President Obama who chose to ignore our immigration laws, and change the Obamacare law as he saw fit on the run?

I don’t recall you pointing out Article II of The Constitution to President Obama, or did I just miss that?

“Even earlier this year, Lieu started printing asterisks next to Trump’s name in his official press releases, leading to a footnote that reminds readers of his failure to capture the popular vote and of allegations of Russian influence,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

Fox News Insider pointed out that, “Lieu also started a “Cloud of Illegitimacy Clock,” which counts the days, hours and minutes that Trump has allegedly been in conflict with a section of the Constitution that governs the likelihood of interference by foreign business interests.”

“Trump is not making America first, he’s making America second,” Lieu said.

It’s not that hard Mr. Lieu.  Really.

Repeat after me, President is “making America great again” by “putting America first.”

I would really like to see a study about the IQ scores for people in your district, Mr. Lieu.  Something tells me the average score would be somewhere south of barely functional.

Is your district anywhere near Maxine Waters’ district?  I’m gonna go way out on a limb here and guess the answer is “yes.”

 

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.

freedom of speech

 

0

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.

remember-when-you-said-trump-would-never-be-president-but-36286487

 

0

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

 

0

How should taxes be ideally collected?  

I believe that no taxes should be taken out of our paychecks.

None.

I believe that taxing based on whether you get a paycheck or not is discriminatory.

I believe the tax rates and certain tax considerations are discriminatory as well.

All money should be collected from national and state sales taxes, along with some other usage taxes and fees.

Things would cost a little more, but we’d have more money to spend as well.

These taxes would be inherently fair because those who spent more money would pay more taxes, and those who liked doing certain things would pay for those things.

Also, people hiding from income taxes, like illegal workers and “cash” workers, would now be paying their fair share.

Corporations and “the rich” would not have to worry about finding “loop holes” anymore, because there wouldn’t be any!

There would be no need for filing tax returns because there would be no deductions, and there would be no more redistribution of wealth via the tax system.  There would be no more getting a tax refund or owing taxes.  Whatever you pay in sales tax is what you pay.

Items deemed to be “necessities” would not be taxed or taxed at a lesser rate.

The only people that could possibly have a problem with this system are those wanting to rip-off our current system, those actually ripping-off our current system now, and those not paying their fair share of taxes or any taxes at all, leaving the rest of us poor honest slobs to pick-up the whole tab.

Other usage taxes would also be employed.  For example, the fuel tax would in turn pay for all things transportation related.  The more fuel you purchase, the more you use the roads, so the more you pay.  Get it?

People who participate in activities or use certain places, pay for those activities and places with associated fees.

Anything that is not self-sustainable would become unavailable.

Funding for our government, military, social security, and other essential services would come from the base sales tax and would be appropriated as they currently are.

Also, by collecting taxes this way, we are all invested in the process.  If you don’t pay any taxes you’re not really concerned with how high they are or how the taxes are being spent.

I understand that this is not a completely original idea, but the concept here as a whole is, I believe.

I’m not holding my breath for this method of tax collection to go into effect, but someday…, maybe.

Please give me some feedback and let me know what you think!

 

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.

income tax

 

 

0

“A person with options is a person with power!”

“A person with the option to take ownership of something is much richer when they decide to invest in that option of their own free will. – Mr. Erickson

What is politics in America basically about?

Politics in America is basically about people fighting to decide who will have the power to decide what we spend our money on, among other things, of course, but primarily that.

What if we took some of that power out of the equation for our politicians?

What if they were only charged with supplying the options, not the actual funding in a lot of cases?

What if we gave some of that power back to the people who are footing the bill?

You might say that could never work because how could you formulate a budget operating that way?

Well, my answer would be that the politicians have not operated within a budget for a long time anyway.  And I would be right.  The last time the Congress even passed a budget was in 2006.

Some types of basic levels of funding would have to exist for the military, government operations, etc., but the lion’s share of the spending could be deemed discretionary, and those levels determined by the desires of the taxpayers.

For example, in my state, when filling out my tax return form, I can select an amount to go towards any of the following causes: Endangered resources, Military family relief, Cancer research, Second Harvest/Feeding Americans, Veterans trust fund, Red Cross Disaster Relief, Multiple sclerosis, of the Special Olympics.

Why can’t the federal government help to fund different projects or causes the same way?

If people really want something they’ll kick-in money for it, and if they don’t, they won’t.

Why couldn’t we have the option to give additional money to a “Border wall building fund?”

Or to NASA?

Or to a “School Security” fund?

Or to a “Climate change protection fund?”

Or to a “Help the homeless fund?”

Or to an “Education improvement fund?

Think about all of the possibilities and all of the opportunities.

I feel like this would be a more productive way of spending our money.

Instead of these lobbyists wasting money on politicians, they could just directly fund their own cause.

Instead of private citizens wasting their money on supporting politicians, they could just directly fund their own favorite causes.

If you are worried about climate change, then put your money where your mouth is.

If you want a border wall built on our southern border, open up your wallet and chip in.

Having choices is good.

Being forced to pay for programs you don’t support is not good.

Let’s try doing what’s good.

 

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.

income tax before 1913

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑