“Nothing unmasks a man [or a woman] like his [or her] use of power.” – Elbert Hubbard, American writer

Our favorite House Representative-elect, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has not even taken her oath of office yet, or spent one minute officially on her new job yet, and she is already threatening others with her newly gained powers (at least in her mind) to be.

Way to go Alexandria! We have an overachiever here! She’s just a little over anxious to flex her socialist ruling class muscle, however!

So what’s the story here?

Being the social media maven that she is, Ocasio-Cortez managed to get into an “Instagram” tussle with our favorite “junior,” Donald Trump, Jr.

It all started when Don Jr. posted a meme to his “Instagram” account showing Ocasio-Cortez and President Donald Trump debating each other, with Ocasio-Cortez asking, “Why are you afraid of a socialist economy?” and The President replying, “Because Americans want to walk their dogs, not eat them.”

Ha!

For those not familiar with social media lingo, a “meme” (pronounced MEEM) is a picture with a statement or funny phrase added to it. Many of the pictures that I attach to my blogs would be considered memes.

Anyway, so Don Jr. posts this meme with the added commentary, “funny cuz’ it’s true.”

The meme is drawing a connection between Ocasio-Cortez’s political beliefs and reports coming out of Venezuela that dogs, cats and zoo animals are being eaten by residents due to the country’s corruption and its socialist policies that have failed, the Washington Post has reported.

Ocasio-Cortez then responded via Twitter, “I have noticed that Junior here has a habit of posting nonsense about me whenever the Mueller investigation heats up.”

She then additionally tweeted, “Please, keep it coming Jr – it’s definitely a “very, very large brain” idea to troll a member of a body that will have subpoena power in a month. Have fun!”

Well, after seeing this response, supporters of The President, friends of Don Jr. and conservatives in general, didn’t waste any time accusing her of threatening to improperly use subpoena power to retaliate against The President and his son because of his son’s behavior.

“A sitting congresswoman has no right to use her power to threaten someone. @DonaldJTrumpJr has rights, and @Ocasio2018 threatened them because he “trolled” her. That’s inexcusable,” tweeted conservative journalist Justin T. Haskins.

“Are you threatening to use your power as a federal official to subpoena anyone who mocks or otherwise disagrees with you on the Internet?” tweeted Sean Davis (@seanmdav).

“I just want to be clear: Did a member-elect of Congress just threaten a private citizen with a subpoena over a meme? There is no way in hell that this can be legal,” conservative commentator Candace Owens tweeted.

“Did you just threaten to subpoena someone for criticizing you? As a lawyer and former prosecutor I find this deeply troubling,” Kimberly Guilfoyle tweeted.

Ocasio-Cortez should be aware that, per page 150 of the House Ethics Manual, “Members…are not to take or withhold any official action on the basis of the campaign contributions or support of the involved individuals, or their partisan affiliation. Members and staff are likewise prohibited from threatening punitive action on the basis of such considerations.” Ocasio-Cortez does seemingly threaten to possibly subpoena Donald Trump Jr. when she takes office in a month. This would be a violation of the House Ethics Manual, which of course only actually applies to Republicans.

There were other “tweeters” who came to her defense, however.

“Only a poorly educated right-winger with a tenuous grasp of language would ever perceive this as some sort of ‘threat,’” tweeted Ajohms1956.

“The comments here are hilarious and a little disturbing. People either cannot read or they’re reading what their minds want to read. You said you’ll be a member of a body that has subpoena power. You DID NOT say that YOU will have subpoena power,” tweeted @chris_newsome.

It really gets kind of boring hearing these liberals questioning peoples’ level of education and intelligence whenever these other people don’t agree with them. It’s also quite comical when they try to tell you what you were supposed to see or hear, according to them, as opposed to what you actually did see or hear, as if we needed their help interpreting the input from our senses!

After social media “blew up” over this whole fiasco, Ocasio-Cortez, who apparently now took the time to do a little homework, posted a tweet responding to people questioning her intent by “walking back” her prior statements and reminding them all how subpoena power actually works.

Oh yes Alexandria, please “clarify” your remarks, put them in the “proper context” for us uneducated dolts, and educate us all now!

“For the GOP crying that this is a ‘threat’ – I don’t have power to subpoena anybody,” she tweeted. “Congress as a body, GOP included, has the power. No indiv. member can issue a subpoena unless they are a Chair (which, as a freshman, I can assure you I will not be). Also must be under purview.”

Impressive! You can read, write and recite from your little handbook there, with the help of at least one of your “aides” no doubt!

Your performance here, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, is just what we were all expecting from you: Typically uninformed, unencumbered Constitutionally, and promoting socialistic nonsense.

I have to say, you may not be the brightest candle on the cake, and your pro-socialism stances undermine our perception of your intelligence, but you are genuine and you are not the typical “baffle them with bs” politician. For that I do give you some credit.

This will definitely be an entertaining next couple of years!

Keep those twitter accounts humming!

Thanks for contributing to this article to Maxine Shen for DailyMail.com and Liz Wolfe of “The Federalist.”

“Power attracts the corruptible.” – Frank Herbert, American writer

“Nothing destroys authority more than the unequal and untimely interchange of power stretched too far and relaxed too much.” – Sir Francis Bacon

“The stupidity of men [and women] always invites the insolence of power.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

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.

December 12, 2018 0

BUILD THAT WALL! BUILD THAT WALL! BUILD THAT WALL!

With all due respect Mr. President, and I am saying “with all due respect,” it is time to draw a line in the sand and make your stand.

President Trump met Democrat leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi in the Oval office yesterday, December 11, 2018, to discuss border security, the wall, and continuing to fund the government.

The President allowed the press to attend the beginning of the meeting, and the cameras were on, as The President said, “If we don’t have border security, we’ll shut down the government.”

President Trump repeatedly told Mrs. Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, that what she’s proposing would not pass the Senate.

“If it’s not good [on] border security, I won’t take it,” President Trump quickly replied.

Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer repeatedly urged The President to take the meeting private, (all the more reason not to) but not before he declared he’s “proud to shut down the government for border security” and will “take the mantle.”

Prior to the meeting, and earlier in the morning, President Trump threatened to have the military “build the remaining sections” of the wall if Congress doesn’t deliver the funding.

As President Trump began discussing the details of the negotiations, with Vice President Mike Pence also in attendance, Mrs. Pelosi complained, “I don’t think you should have a debate in front of the press.” And at another point, Mr. Schumer added, “Let’s debate in private.”

I’m sure there was a reason President Trump wanted at least a portion of the discussion out in the open for all to see. I’m guessing The President wanted the two Democrat leaders, and democrats in general, to have to own their positions in a way that could not be confused or re-translated later.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, they say.

“Elections have consequences, Mr. President,” Schumer interjected, undoubtedly hoping to bolster his position.

“And that’s why the country is doing so well,” The President responded.

Mr. Schumer then challenged President Trump over his boasting that Republicans kept control of the Senate. “When a president brags that he’s won Indiana and North Dakota, he’s in real trouble,” Schumer offered.

Apparently Mr. Schumer has a lack of respect for the states and the people from the states of Indiana and North Dakota, as he seems to denigrate the value of these states.

Congress last week temporarily averted a partial shutdown amid the funeral services for the late President George H.W. Bush, pushing the new deadline to Dec. 21.

President Trump wants $5 billion for the wall project, while Democrats are offering $1.3 billion for border security, which doesn’t include an actual wall.

Mrs. Pelosi said she and many other Democrats consider the wall “immoral, ineffective and expensive.”

Speaking for conservatives, I think we have seen with the recent caravan and those people waiting in Tijuana, Mexico, how effective an actual wall is and how necessary it is given our current immigration laws.

Mr. Schumer said Democrats want to work with President Trump to avert a shutdown, but said, “Money for border security should not include the concrete wall President Trump has envisioned. Instead, the money should be used for fencing and technology that experts say is appropriate.”

Yes, Mr. Schumer, we are all aware that you can always find “experts” to support any position you may take or any belief you may have.

President Trump has said that Congress should provide all the money he wants for the wall and called illegal immigration a “threat to the well-being of every American community.”

Even though the Republicans will pick-up a couple of seats in the Senate next year, they currently have 51 votes. Sixty votes are required in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, thus effectively blocking a proposal.

Let’s remember that during President Trump’s campaign for president, at every jam packed rally, in the dozens of states he visited, he promoted building a wall and the people in attendance chanted, “BUILD THAT WALL! BUILD THAT WALL! BUILD THAT WALL!”

If ever a president had a mandate, based on an election, to do anything, it is President Trump’s mandate to “build the wall.”

“We the People” have waited long enough.

We want our wall!

And yes, Mr. Schumer, elections do have consequences, and don’t you dare try and throw your weak midterms in our faces. Especially you, as your party lost even more seats in the Senate!

You want The President and us to “own” shutting the government down in order to get our wall? Fine! We will proudly own the shutdown, and we don’t care if it’s shut down until the 2020 election!

“We the People” wanted a wall on our southern border and we elected Donald Trump to build that wall.

I would further respectfully suggest that President Trump address the nation, similar to the way President Reagan did on several occasions, bypassing the “biased, liberal, fake news media” “filter,” and make your case for the wall directly to the American people, putting some pressure on their representatives.

“Maybe Poker’s just not your game, Chuckie. I know, let’s have a spelling contest!” – adapted quote from the movie “Tombstone.”

Thanks to Alex Pappas and Chad Pergram of Fox News, and Judson Berger and The Associated Press for contributing to this article.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 12, 2018 0

This might be the most historic new law you never heard about.

On October 24, 2018, President Donald Trump signed a bipartisan bill aimed at tackling the nation’s growing opioid epidemic.

America’s new opioid law is being called “historic in its breadth.”

The fact of the matter is, it is a historic law, and a law that is long overdue.

It’s a type of law that neither President Barack Obama nor President George W. Bush before him had any interest in fighting for while they were president. George W. was more interested in fighting in the Middle East, and Barack Obama was more interested in fighting the climate.

In all fairness, the congresses during the Bush and Obama years weren’t responsive to, or particularly interested in this issue either.

While all of this was going on, people across our country, from every social, economic and cultural strata were crying out for help in battling this insidious epidemic that knew no political affiliation or ideology.

It took the “divisive” and the “uncaring” President Donald J. Trump to stand up and champion this issue on behalf of Americans in every state and every city and town across this country.

This is the reason you may not have heard much about this new law. It has President Trump’s fingerprints all over it, and the “biased, liberal, fake news media” cannot bring itself to give President Trump credit for anything positive in nature.

Had this law been passed on Obama’s watch, it would have been “trumpeted,” no pun intended, by every “biased, liberal, fake news media” outlet in the land, as an answer to our prayers and as an example of how bipartisan cooperation can be accomplished.

The opioid legislation, officially titled “The Substance-Use Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act,” indicates clear progress in America’s fight against opioid addiction and treatment.

“The legislation is historic in its breadth and commitment to the problem,” Brett Giroir, assistant secretary for health and senior advisor for Opioid Policy at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told Yahoo Finance. “Whether it’s enough, it’s what we know to do right now. It’s the right legislation at the right time.”

“The new law targets over-prescription and opioid trafficking. While most of the specific costs are still unknown, the law directs $500 million a year toward the opioid crisis, and makes tweaks to hopefully give states more flexibility in using the funding.”

A key provision of the bill is the continuance of state opioid grants through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). “This adds hundreds of millions of dollars to the states to treat [opioid abuse],” said Giroir.

“There are mothers who suffer from opioid abuse and providing medication assisted treatments to the mother helps them and dramatically decreases complications for the babies.”

Babies born to mothers suffering opioid abuse are at risk of developing neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), a form of drug withdrawal. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, there were an estimated 21,732 infants born from 2000 to 2012 with NAS, “equivalent to one baby suffering from opiate withdrawal born every 25 minutes.”

The number of deaths related to opioids has dramatically increased over the last 15 years. The new opioid legislation aims to curb this.

Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway recently described the epidemic as “the crisis next door,” which is why the new opioid legislation made so much sense. “I think part of why it passed in a bipartisan fashion is because everybody sees the need back at home. Whether you represent a state or a congressional district, you just see the need back at home. Law enforcement, access to treatment. Certainly, education and prevention.”

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), “more than 200,000 people died in the U.S. from overdoses related to prescription opioids from 1999 to 2016.” In 2017, nearly 49,000 people died from opioid-related overdoses, with synthetic opioid fentanyl being the biggest driver.

Giroir said that the HHS is “constantly looking for new ways” to attack the opioid problem, the next step, he said, is increasing the availability of naloxone, an opioid reversal drug.

I’m sure there will be critics of this new law, but at least we have something out there now that we can even be critical of.

Thank you President Trump for one more “promise kept.”

Thank you to Adriana Belmonte, an associate editor for Yahoo Finance News 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 my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 11, 2018 0

“It’s the end of the world as we know it…, and I feel fine.”

The lyrics are from the song by the same title by R.E.M.

The impending “collapse of civilization” was predicted at the recent UN climate summit, due to global warming.

Please forgive me if I’m just a little skeptical, but since when I was growing up, back in the 70’s, global cooling was all the rage, which was supposed to usher in a new “ice age!”

The truth is these scientists have no idea what they’re talking about. We see it every day. One day this certain food or drink will cause your early death, according to the “experts.” Then a few months later we hear this food or drink is actually good for you. Then it changes back again! What has changed? Can’t they make up their mind?

The same thing applies to these weather experts. They pretend to know something about the weather, when they’re dealing with only 135 years of recorded temperature data, and many years less of any other kind of weather data.

According to History.com, “Scientists have recorded five significant ice ages throughout the Earth’s history: the Huronian (2.4-2.1 billion years ago), Cryogenian (850-635 million years ago), Andean-Saharan (460-430 mya), Karoo (360-260 mya) and Quaternary (2.6 mya-present). Approximately a dozen major glaciations have occurred over the past 1 million years, the largest of which peaked 650,000 years ago and lasted for 50,000 years. The most recent glaciation period, often known simply as the “Ice Age,” reached peak conditions some 18,000 years ago before giving way about 11,700 years ago.”

Interesting. But you can’t find any information about scientists identifying any periods of intense global warming.

Hmmm. I wonder why that is?

Also, how exactly did all of this previous “climate change” occur without any human behavior to blame?

We’ve only got 5,000-6,000 years of human history altogether on the planet, compared to the age of the Earth, which scientists claim is about 4.5 billion years (4,500,000,000 years). Based on those numbers, human existence on this planet is like a blink of an eye over the course of a person’s life. Who’s to say what is and what is not “normal” for our planet, or if there is anything that could be considered “normal” at all?

Just some information and questions to ponder on this subject.

Let’s get back to the impending “collapse of civilization.”

Sir David Attenborough spoke at a UN Climate Summit in Poland, warning that “climate change could lead to the collapse of civilization if action isn’t taken.”

Chances are, you’ve probably heard Sir David Attenborough narrate documentaries like “Planet Earth” and “Blue Planet” for the BBC.

Oh, I get it! So it’s like he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night! He’s not really a climatologist, but he plays one on TV!!!

“Right now, we’re facing a man-made disaster of global scale,” Attenborough told delegates from almost 200 nations. “Our greatest threat in thousands of years: climate change. If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”

According to Brandon Specktor, Senior Writer for “LiveScience,” “Attenborough was chosen to speak at the summit as part of the U.N.’s new ‘people’s seat’ initiative, which encouraged citizens of the world to share their personal messages and videos explaining how climate change has already affected their lives. Several of these messages were shared as part of Attenborough’s speech today; they included footage of people standing in front of the ashen remains of their homes, which had been incinerated by wildfires.”

This was obviously caused by global warming! We have never seen anyone’s home burn down because of a wildfire before global warming was being touted in the 1990’s.

“The world’s people have spoken,” Attenborough said. “Their message is clear. Time is running out. They want you, the decision-makers, to act now. Leaders of the world, you must lead,” Attenborough concluded. “The continuation of our civilizations and the natural world upon which we depend is in your hands.”

Bravo! Sir Attenborough, Bravo!

Your speech was sufficiently dramatic, as could be expected.

Now let’s deal with reality.

Exactly what do you want us to do that is going to make one bit of a damn difference Mister Sir David Attenborough?

Do you want us to shut down coal fired power plants all around the world that provide electricity for our daily use?

Do you want us to shut down all factories that produce any sort of pollution?

Do you want us all to park our cars in our garages and never use them again?

Do you want to ground all of the jets we use for travel because they pollute the air?

Do you want to halt all of the truck and rail transportation of our goods?

Do you want us all to stop using natural gas to heat our homes, heat our water and heat our food?

What is it exactly that you want us to do? What “actions” to you want us to take?

Do you want us to go back to living like we did in The Middle Ages?

I think that’s what you’re saying you want. Either that or you are very naïve about the whole subject, or you are just very disingenuous.

I’m willing to wager that very few of these “people who have spoken,” who you refer to, would be willing to give up many of their luxuries of modern life.

We’re all in favor of sacrifice to “save the planet,” as long as it’s someone else doing the sacrificing.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 10, 2018 0

Who you calling a wimp…, wimp?

What I’m referring to here is back in 1987, Newsweek published a story about the then Vice President seeking his own White House bid titled, “George Bush: Fighting the ‘Wimp Factor,” referring to George Herbert Walker Bush, who would become the 41^st President of The United States.

That was back in the day when Republicans were afraid of how they would be perceived by the media and didn’t fight back against them.

That was back in the day (the pre-FOX News days) when “the media” could get away with pretty much whatever they wanted. They had the power to mold the country’s take on any topic or situation.

Well…, those days are gone my friends, and I’m officially calling out former Newsweek editor Evan Thomas!

This offending magazine hit the newsstands when George H. W. Bush’s granddaughter, Jenna, was only 6 years old, but it ended up leaving a lasting impression on her.

Jenna Bush Hager would go on to say that, Newsweek’s cover calling George H.W. Bush [her grandfather] a “wimp” confused her. “He was a hero in our eyes.”

And rightly so.

“When we lived here in D.C., when we were in elementary school, I have this vivid memory of going to the grocery store, I was with my mom, and saw the cover of Newsweek that said ‘Wimp’ and it had a picture of my grandpa next to it. It confused me, it confused us, because he was the antithesis of a wimp,” Bush Hager said on NBC’s “Today” show.

“He was somebody that showed us that family matters. He never was looking at work when we were next to him. He was present. He played with us. He made us feel special,” Bush Hager continued. “He spoke softly and he didn’t speak about himself, he was humble. But why did that have to equate to being a wimp? It didn’t to us. He was our hero.”

The United States formally entered World War II December 8, 1941, following Japan’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. Six months later, George Bush enlisted into the U.S. Navy immediately after he graduated from High School.

He became a naval aviator in 10 months.

He was commissioned as an ensign on June 9, 1943, just three days before his 19th birthday, which made him one of the youngest aviators in the history of the Navy.

Initially, his squadron participated in the victorious Battle of the Philippine Sea, one of the largest air battles of World War II.

Bush was promoted to lieutenant (junior grade) on August 1, 1944, and his aircraft carrier, The San Jacinto, commenced operations against the Japanese in the Bonin Islands. He piloted one of the four Grumman TBM Avengers that attacked the Japanese installations on Chichijima on September 2, 1944. His aircraft was hit by flak during the attack, but Bush successfully released bombs and scored several hits anyway. With his engine ablaze, he flew several miles from the island, where he and his crew bailed out. Bush waited for four hours in a small raft before he was rescued by the submarine USS Finback.

Through 1944, he flew 58 combat missions for which he received the Distinguished Flying Cross, three Air Medals, and the Presidential Unit Citation.

After Bush received his military discharge, he enrolled at Yale University. He earned an undergraduate degree in economics on an accelerated program that enabled him to graduate in two and a half years, rather than the usual four. He also captained the Yale baseball team and played in the first two College World Series.

He moved his family to West Texas where he entered the oil business, worked his way up the ladder, eventually owning his own oil drilling company, and becoming a millionaire by the age of 40.

He was the United States Ambassador to The United Nations.

He served as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

He served as Vice President for two terms under Ronald Reagan.

He was elected the 41^st President of The United States, where Bush defeated Michael Dukakis in the Electoral College by a total of 426 to 111, losing only nine states.

As President, he oversaw the fall of The Berlin Wall and the fall of The Soviet Union.

He also oversaw Operation Desert Storm, the first Gulf War, in Iraq. Inarguably one of the most successful military operations in our country’s history.

I would say that this is the resume’ of a man who was anything but a wimp.

According to Brian Flood of Fox News, “It seems that the man responsible for calling Bush a wimp agrees with Bush Hager now, even if it took him decades to admit it. Earlier this week, former Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said he regretted using the word “wimp” to describe H.W. Bush.

Thomas, in an op-ed for Yahoo, wrote that he edited the story and added the word “wimp” despite objections from the story’s reporter.

“But the clear implication of the cover story…, was that Bush somehow lacked the inner fortitude to lead the free world,” he wrote. “How wrong we were. As the 41st president, Bush was anything but a wimp.”

As usual, the eventual retraction of a story or a statement does not match the impact or effect of the original story or statement.

Thank you Mr. Thomas for waiting until the poor man was dead to admit you were wrong, and the statement was a mistake. But in all actuality, you knew you were wrong at the time as well. You just didn’t care, and you weren’t going to let facts get in the way of your desired narrative. You were just doing your job as a member of the “biased, liberal, fake news media,” while attempting to cast George H. W. Bush in a negative light.

Mr. Evan Welling Thomas III, now there’s a wimpy sounding name for you, deserves to be called out for being the “biased, liberal, fake news media” propagandist that he was, and is. He is also a proud member in a family where his grandfather, Norman Thomas, was a six-time Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.

That figures. Such a proud leftist, and wimpy, heritage.

I’m sorry that George’s granddaughter, Jenna, was subjected to this character assignation perpetrated by Evan Thomas and Newsweek (which I like to call “WeakNews”).

Like they might say in a sports locker room, “Mr. Thomas…, you couldn’t hold George’s jockstrap!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 7, 2018 0

The KGB…, oops, I mean the FBI is at it again!

Apparently “the swamp” runs pretty deep over at the good ol’ FBI.

Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, and current Chairman of The Senate Judiciary Committee, wants answers about an FBI raid conducted on a “whistleblower,” who apparently had information on Hillary Clinton, The Clinton Foundation and “Uranium One.”

Please refer to my previous blog on January 5, 2018, “Grand Theft Uranium,” “Oh what a tangled, and radioactive, web they weave!” for a little more background on this subject.

“Uranium One” is [was] a Canadian mining company whose sale to a Russian firm was approved in 2010. The U.S. government was involved because the sale gave the Russians control of part [approximately 15%] of the U.S. uranium supply [uranium of course being necessary to produce nuclear energy or nuclear weapons]. The transaction has faced renewed scrutiny after “The Hill” reported last year that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S.

Sen. Grassley has written to FBI Director Christopher Wray and the Justice Department’s internal watchdog (a government “watchdog” is a group or individual within an organization charged with self-policing against illegal or unethical conduct) to request information about the raid on the home of a former FBI contractor, Dennis Cain, who gave the watchdog documents related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to a Russian firm’s subsidiary.

“Whistleblowers” are supposed to be protected because the “whistleblowing” is usually on people or groups that can manipulate them or do them harm. In this case, because of the nature of the case, and those involved, the “whistleblower” was not protected, but in fact it appears targeted and tampered with.

According to “The Daily Caller,” “16 FBI agents raided the Maryland home of Dennis Nathan Cain on Nov. 19 [2018]. Cain’s lawyer, Michael Socarras, told the website that the agent who led the raid accused his client of possessing stolen federal property. In response, Cain reportedly claimed that he was a protected whistleblower under federal law and had been recognized as such by the DOJ watchdog, Michael Horowitz.”

Socarras also claimed that Horowitz had transmitted his information to The House and Senate intelligence committees.

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.

In his letter to Wray, Grassley asked on what basis the FBI raided Cain’s home?

Raided on what basis?

It was raided on a big CYA basis! That’s what kind of basis!

It was raided because the FBI wanted to control whatever evidence was there.

He also asked whether the bureau was aware of Cain’s disclosures to Horowitz’s office; whether the bureau considered those disclosures to be protected, and whether agents seized classified information in the raid.

Grassley has given Wray and Horowitz until Dec. 12, 2018 to respond.

Anybody want to bet he ignores that deadline?

Anybody want to bet he ignores the request entirely?

Fox News has previously reported that Douglas Campbell, an FBI informant, involved in the deal, has testified to lawmakers that Moscow paid millions to American lobbying firm “APCO Worldwide” to influence Clinton and the Obama administration.

Wait…, let me get this straight…, “Moscow paid millions to American lobbying firm “APCO Worldwide” to influence Clinton and the Obama administration,” but we are investigating President Trump regarding Russian collusion and Russian influence in our election?

It must be really hard for Robert Mueller to manage an investigation against President Trump, when all he does is trip over evidence against Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration every time he turns around!

“The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over 12 months,” Campbell said in his statement this past February. “APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the US-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.”

APCO has denied Campbell’s claims while Clinton called any claims of wrongdoing related to the Uranium One deal “the same baloney they’ve been peddling for years, and there’s been no credible evidence by anyone.”

“In fact,” Clinton told C-SPAN in October, “it’s been debunked repeatedly and will continue to be debunked.”

Au contraire Mrs. Clinton. Nothing here has been “debunked.” The story has been ignored by the “biased, liberal, fake news media;” you and your friends continue to just deny, deny, deny, but nothing has been “debunked.”

It never hurts to have the FBI on your side either.

Thank you to Samuel Chamberlain of Fox news for contributing to this story.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 6, 2018 1

Robert Mueller’s “Gestapo-like” tactics are being challenged in court!

Conservative writer Jerome Corsi has filed a criminal complaint against Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team, which alleges their desire to seek false testimony from Mr. Corsi, along with other claims of “gross prosecutorial misconduct and criminal acts,” in regards to their investigation of Dr. Jerome Corsi, Ph.d.

In the complaint, Dr. Corsi, an investigative journalist, whose activities are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, claims he has been threatened with immediate indictment by Mueller’s prosecutorial staff unless he testifies falsely against Roger Stone and/or President Donald Trump and his presidential campaign, among other false testimony.

From what I have read of Mr. Corsi’s complaint, he seems to have a very good case on multiple claims, and Mr. Mueller and his henchmen are getting some light shined on their questionable activities and tactics.

Based on Mr. Corsi’s complaint, I believe Mueller could be guilty of:

18 U.S. Code § 1512 – Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.

Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding.

And:

18 U.S. Code § 872 – Extortion by officers or employees of the United States

Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(“Ctrl” and “click” on the link below if you’d like to read the actual complaint that was submitted.)

READ: JEROME CORSI’S COMPLAINT AGAINST SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER

So why did I choose to call Mueller’s tactics “Gestapo-like?” Well, let’s take a look at Hitler’s Gestapo first of all.

The Gestapo was the official secret political police of Nazi Germany.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “The Gestapo operated without civil restraints.”

This is starting to sound familiar already!

“During the Nazi regime’s existence, harsh measures were meted out to political opponents and those who resisted Nazi doctrine. To the people, the Gestapo seemed omniscient and omnipotent, and it evoked an atmosphere of fear. Opposition to Hitler and his regime was not tolerated, so the Gestapo had an important role to play in monitoring and prosecuting all who opposed Nazi rule, whether openly or covertly.”

Now let’s plug in a few current names and terms into this statement and see how it translates:

During “the swamp’s” existence, harsh measures were meted out to political opponents and those who resisted liberal doctrine. To the liberals, Mueller and his team seemed omniscient and omnipotent, and it evoked an atmosphere of fear. Opposition to “the swamp” and liberalism in general was not tolerated, so Mueller and his team had an important role to play in monitoring and prosecuting all who opposed “the swamp” and liberalism, whether openly or covertly.”

Get the picture?

I just read that a former attorney for President Trump, Michael Cohen, was forced to endure more than 70 hours of interrogation by Mueller and his team. If that doesn’t conjure up visions of a Gestapo-like interrogation nothing does!

Ok, so back to the topic at hand.

Jerome Corsi, who is a conservative author, filed a “criminal and ethics complaint” against Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, accusing investigators of trying to bully him into giving “false testimony” against President Trump.

According to Judson Berger, Alex Pappas and Samuel Chamberlain of Fox News, and The Associated Press, “The complaint, which Corsi had threatened for days, is the latest escalation between Mueller’s team and its investigation targets.”

“The 78-page document, asserting the existence of a ‘slow-motion coup against the president,’ was filed to a range of top law enforcement officials including Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, D.C.’s U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu and the Bar Disciplinary Counsel.”

“Dr. Corsi has been criminally threatened and coerced to tell a lie and call it the truth,” the complaint states.

“Corsi, who wrote the anti-President Obama book “The Obama Nation” and is connected with political operative Roger Stone, has claimed for the past week that he was being improperly pressured by Mueller’s team to strike a plea deal which he now says he won’t sign.”

According to Corsi’s complaint, they wanted him to demonstrate that he acted as a liaison between Stone and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on one side and the Trump campaign on the other, regarding the release of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee.

The complaint states that Mueller’s office is now “knowingly and deceitfully threatening to charge Dr. Corsi with an alleged false statement,” unless he gives them “false testimony” against Trump and others.

Asked about the complaint, Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said they would decline to comment, as did a Justice Department spokesman.

Perhaps we need a Special Counsel to investigate the Special Counsel?

“The complaint is the latest sign of turbulence between Mueller’s team and investigation targets and witnesses.”

“President Trump has maintained his stance that ‘there is no collusion’ and blasted Mueller’s investigation in stark terms last week.”

Corsi is represented in his complaint by Larry Klayman, a conservative lawyer who founded “Judicial Watch” and is known for filing lawsuits against former President Bill Clinton. In the complaint, Klayman argues that the activities of Corsi, as an “investigative journalist,” are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Where are all the people from “the media” that were losing their minds over CNN’s Jim Acosta’s alleged First Amendment rights concerns? We all are certainly aware of why Jim Acosta gets treated differently than Jerome Corsi at this point. Acosta plays for the liberal team and Corsi doesn’t. It’s as simple as that.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 5, 2018 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 4, 2018 0

Extra, Extra, read all about it! Former President Obama says, “A woman or candidate of color could beat Trump!”

So, “A woman or candidate of color could beat Trump?” Really Mr. Obama? “A woman or candidate of color could beat Trump?” That’s amazing! I never would have thought it was possible!

This statement isn’t racist or sexist at all, is it? How about a gay man or a lesbian? What about someone who is disabled? Would they have a chance as well?

Barack Obama talked about the choice facing Democrats in a podcast interview with his old buddy and political strategist, David Axelrod, at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics.

What a wonderfully diverse institute of thought that must be!

Mr. Axelrod, as it turns out, is actually the institute’s director!

Wow! It just keeps getting better!

Mr. Axelrod is also a commentator for CNN in his spare time!

Oh, well, then you know he’s gotta be good!

In the podcast, Axelrod asked Mr. Obama about, “those who say the party would make a mistake in selecting another woman or candidate of color as its presidential nominee.”

Neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Axelrod mentioned any names, regarding these beliefs, of course.

Michael Avenatti, everyone’s favorite Trump hating, Kavanaugh bashing, self-proclaimed potential democrat candidate for president in 2020 and self-righteous attorney, said in an interview with Time Magazine last month that he believes “a white man would have the best chance at winning [the presidential election of 2020].”

“I think it better be a white male,” said Mr. Avenatti, who is openly considering a White House bid. “When you have a white male making the arguments, they carry more weight. Should they carry more weight? Absolutely not. But do they? Yes.”

After some of his comments were called into question, Avenatti quickly cleared up all of the concern and confusion by explaining he was referring to “the sexism and bigotry that ‘other’ white males engage in,” not him, of course.

It is almost comical what these liberals are allowed to get away with. Are they really listening to themselves? A conservative would have been hung out to dry seven ways ‘till Sunday for daring to utter these insensitive words.

In fact, shortly after making his enlightened comments, Mr. Avenatti was arrested on suspicion of felony domestic violence, after his girlfriend told police he abused her at his Los Angeles apartment following an argument.

You really couldn’t make this stuff up.

Not to be outdone, another potential democrat candidate for president in 2020, Bernie Sanders, decided to put his foot in his mouth during an interview this month with “The Daily Beast,” in which he said that there are “a lot of white folks out there in Florida and Georgia who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American.”

Ah yes, Bernie, do tell about all of those rare “unicorns” in Florida and Georgia “who are not necessarily racist!” Tell us about all of those people there who are uncomfortable voting for African-Americans as well. Not like the people in your own well educated and noble state of Vermont!

A Sanders spokesman later clarified in a statement to NPR (a clarification we would all hear, of course, since everyone listens to NPR) that the senator was speaking about racist attacks made by ‘others’ against both [African-American] candidates [in Florida and Georgia].

Ugh.

Later in the Axelrod interview, Mr. Obama cited his own 2008 victory as well as Trump’s in 2016 as examples of how generalizations about the chances of certain candidates could prove to be wrong.

He did, however, contrast his own view of America with what he described as that of the current president.

Oh boy, here we go….

“I think what’s unique about America is our aspirations to be a large, successful, multiracial, multicultural, multiethnic, multi-religious, pluralistic democracy,” Mr. Obama said.

“Do you think that’s President Trump’s vision?” Mr. Axelrod asked.

Obama responded without hesitation, saying, “No. Obviously not. We have contrasting visions about what America is. And that’s self-apparent.”

I would respond that I feel you are off base a bit there, President Obama.

I would say that your vision for America and President Trump’s vision for America are quite similar. Similar except for that “successful” part.

You weren’t very good at that “successful” part.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 3, 2018 0

Former President Barack Obama says, “Fox News viewers and New York Times readers live in entirely different realities.”

“Whether it was (Walter) Cronkite or (David) Brinkley or what have you, there was a common set of facts, a baseline around which both parties had to adapt and respond to,” Obama said during a speech at Rice University, in Houston, Texas.

Excuse me Mr. President…, but Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley? Really? Cronkite last anchored CBS nightly news over 37 years ago, and Brinkley last co-anchored NBC nightly news over 39 years ago!

What this means is that none of the students at Rice University had any idea of who you were talking about! And actually, you were only 18 years old yourself when Walter Cronkite retired! You are two years younger than me, so I have a pretty good idea about how much of these guys you remember…, and it isn’t much, believe me.

It seems like you long for the days when “there was a common set of facts, a baseline around which both parties had to adapt.”

This statement seems quite odd to me. Aren’t “the facts” “the facts,” regardless of who happens to be reporting the news?

What former President Obama is really saying is it was easier for the mainstream media (there were only three TV news outlets at that time, CBS, NBC and ABC) and the government establishment to control the news that was fed to the common people. They were the ones who determined what “the facts” were, along with The Associated Press (AP), The Washington Post and The New York Times.

President Obama continued by saying, “And by the time I take office, what you increasingly have is a media environment in which if you are a Fox News viewer, you have an entirely different reality than if you are a New York Times reader.”

That’s right Mr. President, because in one case you have a news outlet which tries to be “fair and balanced” and another that promotes the liberal agenda and ideology.

“If you’re somebody who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in a while. If you’re a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on The Huffington Post website. It may make your blood boil, your mind may not be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship. It is essential for our democracy,” he said.

It doesn’t happen too often, but in this case of your last statement here, I would actually tend to agree with the former president. Everything except the part about checking out The Huffington Post! It doesn’t get more blatantly biased and ignorant than The Huffington Post!

According to “The Independent” website, 64% of Americans surveyed in a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll said “the media” was responsible for dividing the nation rather than uniting it, and I would tend to agree, because it is the intent of the democrats to create divisions in our country, hence it is the mission of “the biased, liberal, mainstream media” to do so as well, although they would, of course, point to Fox News as the perpetrator of this “dividing,” since they have to divert any focus away from themselves.

In an apparent effort to lend additional credibility to himself, and throw shade onto President Trump and his administration, Mr. Obama went on to say that, “Not only did I not get indicted, nobody in my administration got indicted, which, by the way, was the only administration in modern history that can be said about. In fact nobody came close to being indicted. Partly because the people who joined us were there for the right reasons.”

OK…, timeout!

It is true that no one from your administration was indicted, but is not because they didn’t deserve to be indicted, it was because your Attorney Generals, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, were as crooked as the day is long, and they were mere puppets who did whatever they were instructed to do by you.

The former president points to a reason for this “blemishless” record as being, “Partly because the people who joined us were there for the right reasons.”

The “right reasons” of course being they were willing to do as they were told, while keeping their mouths shut.

In response to President Obama’s beliefs regarding “the news” that people are exposed to, I need to point out a few things.

One: the amount of people who read the editorial page of The New York Times is infinitesimal. Likewise, The Wall Street Journal.

Two: the vast, vast, majority of people do not watch or listen to any kind of “news” on any kind of regular basis.

Three: Most, not all, but most, people rely on other people to do their thinking for them in families, in schools, at work, in neighborhoods, in unions, in communities and even in races and cultures. The fact of the matter is that there are very few people that can make an educated argument about any issue, besides regurgitating buzz words and reciting pre-scripted responses.

The truth is that people live in a myriad of different realities, and that is will never change. If by some chance we ever get “boiled down” into only two different realities, we are in trouble.

Americans in general, in my opinion, need to do a better job of being informed on what’s going on around us. It’s really kind of scary when we realize how much people don’t know and what they aren’t aware of.

Independent and well-informed thought by the people will guarantee our continued independence as a nation in the future.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 30, 2018 0

Category: politics

“Nothing unmasks a man [or a woman] like his [or her] use of power.” – Elbert Hubbard, American writer

BUILD THAT WALL! BUILD THAT WALL! BUILD THAT WALL!

This might be the most historic new law you never heard about.

“It’s the end of the world as we know it…, and I feel fine.”

Who you calling a wimp…, wimp?

The KGB…, oops, I mean the FBI is at it again!

Robert Mueller’s “Gestapo-like” tactics are being challenged in court!

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

Extra, Extra, read all about it! Former President Obama says, “A woman or candidate of color could beat Trump!”

Former President Barack Obama says, “Fox News viewers and New York Times readers live in entirely different realities.”

Subscribe to Blog via Email