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

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

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

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

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

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

But here is what we are really talking about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adios amigos!

WINNING!

Louis Casiano of Fox News contributed to this article.

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 13, 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

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

The “biased, liberal, fake news media” shows its true colors once again!

In a special “runoff” election Tuesday night, the last Senate seat up for grabs in 2018 was claimed by the Republican, Cindy Hyde-Smith, by a 54% – 46% margin over the Democrat, Mike Espy.

I guess the “blue wave” didn’t make it too far ashore in the state of Mississippi!

But I digress.

Not only did Hyde-Smith win, giving the Republicans a 53-47 margin in the Senate, she was the first woman elected as a senator from the state of Mississippi. So it was historical in that aspect as well.

Other than possibly the news regarding the migrant caravan on our southern border, this election story should probably have been the most newsworthy item out there this morning.

So, how did the “biased, liberal, fake news media” choose to cover this election story?

Well, let’s take a look the day after the election.

On “The Washington Post’s” website, you have to scroll down to the 28^th story listed there. The headline reads: “Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith wins racially charged election over Democrat Mike Espy.”

On “Yahoo News,” we have to scroll down to the 100^th story listed there, where the headline reads: “Mississippi voters send Hyde-Smith back to the US Senate after runoff marred by controversy.”

On the MSNBC website, there is no mention of election results at all until we see a reference to a story that appears on their show, “Morning Joe,” regarding the election. And we only see this after scrolling over halfway down the website, past 39 other stories.

Lastly, we have our good friends over at CNN. Of the 100 articles listed on their website, we find no headline about the actual election results. The only story we find is titled: “What we learned from the 2018 Senate race.”

We can see that even when the story is mentioned, albeit as an afterthought, it only appears with some sort of negative connotation along with it.

You see, when reality doesn’t support the narrative, reality is just basically ignored by the “biased, liberal, fake news media.

I call this “propaganda by omission,” and it is conducted by the “biased, liberal, fake news media” almost every day.

Alternatively, suppose the democrat had won the election in Mississippi.

Do you think the “biased, liberal, fake news media” would have covered the story any differently?

Do you think the story would have appeared more prominently in their “story pecking order?”

Do you think we may have seen more positive headlines, bordering on being almost joyous in nature?

The answers to these questions are YES, YES and YES.

So once again, we have a blatant display of how the “biased, liberal, fake news media” operates.

They can deny their bias, preferential treatment, misinformation and propagandizing all they want, but we are wise to their tricks now and they have our full and undivided attention. Their days of getting away with this are over!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 29, 2018 1

The “biased, liberal, fakes news media’s” take on President Trump’s recent FOX News interview. And my take on their take!

President Trump sat down with “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace, for an interview, November 18, 2018, regarding his first two years in the nation’s highest office.

This blog is my reaction to CNN Editor, Chris Cillizza’s reaction to the Chris Wallace interview.

Mr. Cillizza went through the transcript from the interview and picked out, in his words, “the most, uh, memorable lines” of the interview in his opinion.

Mr. Cillizza had no positive reaction to anything The President said, of course. He was only looking for comments by The President to be critical of.

Here are President Trump’s statements (PT), Chris Cillizza’s comment (CC), and my reaction to it all (MER.)

PT: “There was no collusion whatsoever, and the whole thing is a scam.”

CC: “191 criminal counts, 35 people/entities charged, 6 people pleaded guilty, 1 found guilty in trial.”

MER: Robert Mueller and his motley crew have been at this “investigation” for coming up on two years now, and they have not come up with anything to do with the Trump campaign’s imaginary involvement with Russia or anything against The President. All of these charges and criminal counts are for unrelated and miscellaneous items. Mr. Cillizza’s comments are disingenuous, and they imply The President’s comment is incorrect, when in fact The President is absolutely correct.

PT: “I won the Senate, you don’t mention that.”

CC: “He won the Senate. Not the candidates, or the party, Donald Trump won it.”

MER: President Trump was only replying to the statement in the manner it was made. Chris Wallace stated “you lost the House of Representatives…,” and President Trump Responded with, “I won the Senate, you don’t mention that.” In general, it probably would have helped Mr. Cillizza if he had actually watched the interview as opposed to just reviewing the transcript.

PT: “I won the Senate. … Number two, I wasn’t on the ballot.”

CC: “Um. So, Trump won the Senate but any losses can’t be blamed on him because he wasn’t on the ballot. [Puts on green accountant visor thing-y] Yup, this all adds up.”

MER: That’s really cute Mr. Cillizza, but disingenuous again. President Trump didn’t say “losses couldn’t be blamed” on him. He just stated the fact that he “wasn’t on the ballot,” which is true.

PT: “But I had people, and you see the polls, how good they are, I had people that won’t vote unless I’m on the ballot, OK? And I wasn’t on the ballot.”

CC: “I love a good word salad.”

MER: Granted, The President was maybe a little choppy with his wording here, but I think we all got the gist of what he was saying. I also do not recall any of President Obama’s incoherent rambling, at any point, being referred to as a “word salad.” Just saying.

PT: “And it was all stacked against Brian, and I was the one that went for Brian and Brian won.”

CC: “Brian Kemp did win the Georgia governor’s race. But it was not stacked against him. At all. The last time a Democrat was elected governor of Georgia was Roy Barnes in 1998.The last time a Democrat won Georgia in a presidential race was Bill Clinton in 1992.”

MER: With all due respect Mr. Cillizza, the race for governor was “stacked against him.” “Outside” democrat money poured into this campaign; over $65 million in total. Stacey Abrams was funded by George Soros and other democrats with seemingly endless resources. Former President Barack Obama campaigned in Georgia for Abrams, and Oprah Winfrey made campaign stops on numerous occasions as well.

PT: “Rick Scott won and he won by a lot.”

CC: “Scott won by 10,033 votes. Out of more than 8 million cast.”

MER: Technically you’re correct here, Mr. Cillizza, that was the final, official count, but that was only after the democrats were allowed to keep voting for an additional week, and conveniently misplace or lose other republican ballots during the recount. If Florida’s election results had been tabulated properly and fairly, yes, Rick Scott would have “won by a lot,” considering he was unseating a Senator who had been in office for decades.

PT: “The news about me is largely phony. It’s false. Even sometimes they’ll say, ‘Sources say.’ There is no source, in many cases, in [other] cases there is.”

CC: “Again, this is about Donald Trump not liking the news. Not about the news being “largely phony.” And the idea that mainstream media organizations make up sources is beyond ridiculous.”

MER: No, this isn’t about President Trump “not liking the news,” it’s about President Trump not liking being treated unfairly. It’s about “fake news” that is created to suit the liberal narrative, and it’s about “fake news” that very rarely cites an identifiable source. Additionally, I would classify nothing the “biased, liberal, mainstream media” does as being “beyond ridiculous.”

PT: “He’s a Hillary Clinton backer and an Obama backer.”

CC: “Trump is talking here about William McRaven, the former head of US Special Operations Command and the architect of the raid that led to the death of Osama bin Laden. Why? Because McRaven said that Trump’s attempts to undermine the press were a threat to democracy. And because Trump is incapable of seeing anything outside of a purely partisan lens. Also, Trump is wrong about McRaven’s political preferences; ‘I did not back Hillary Clinton or anyone else,’ McRaven told CNN.”

MER: Excuse me, but President Trump is absolutely right…, again. McRaven has been critical of Candidate and President Trump on numerous occasions and about numerous topics. McRaven may not have come out and announced his support for Hillary, BUT he was being considered as Hillary’s running mate for a period of time! I think we can safely put him in the democrats’ wing of the political spectrum. You then state that, “Trump is incapable of seeing anything outside of a purely partisan lens.” Please list for me any member of our nationally elected government who doesn’t view thing through a “purely partisan lens.” Please list for me anyone from your “biased, liberal, fake news media” who doesn’t view thing through a “purely partisan lens,” for that matter.

PT: “And, Chris, you know that better…, you don’t have to sit here and act like a perfect little, wonderful, innocent angel. I know you too well. I knew your father too well, that’s not your gene.”

CC: “I am frankly surprised that it took this long for Trump to turn on Wallace. Despite the obvious pro-Trump bias of lots of the shows (and people) on Fox news, Wallace is a straight-shooter and tough questioner. I’m actually surprised, given that, that Trump agreed to sit down for an interview with him.”

MER: The fact that you feel Chris Wallace is a “straight shooter,” Mr. Cillizza, actually knocks Chris Wallace down a few pegs in my book. You say you’re “surprised” President Trump agreed to an interview with Wallace, but I doubt that President Trump would turn down an interview request from most well-known interviewers. I also applaud President Trump for calling Wallace out. These interviewers are not the embodiment of integrity, decency and forthrightness that they portend to be.

PT: “I think I’m doing a great job. We have the best economy we’ve ever had.”

CC: “Modesty has never been Trump’s strong suit.”

MER: President Trump could afford to be more modest if the “biased, liberal, fake news media” were able to give him credit for anything he has accomplished or reported anything he does from a positive point of view.

PT: “I would give myself…, I would…, look…, I hate to do it, but I will do it. I would give myself an A-plus, is that enough? Can I go higher than that?”

CC: “Two things: 1) He doesn’t hate to do it, and 2) The President asked if he could give himself a grade higher than an ‘A+.’ So, here we are.”

MER: First of all, you don’t know what President Trump “hates to do,” or what he doesn’t “hate to do.” He feels he has done an excellent job, apparently, and I would tend to agree with him.

Before closing, I would like to point out that Chris Cillizza never refers to President Trump as “President Trump” or “The President.” Cillizza only refers to The President as “Trump” or “Donald Trump.” I’m sure this a conscious decision, and intentionally disrespectful, in my opinion.

President Trump typically responds in the same manner that he is addressed, and usually in an even nicer tone. He is not your typical politician, and he generally responds with an honest opinion or answer, like it or not. He doesn’t “talk down” to his audience, nor does he try to talk over their heads.

Unless you take President Trump from a predetermined position of opposition and dislike, like the “biased, liberal, fake news media” does, you have to admire and appreciate the way President Trump doesn’t mince words, and how he interacts with the “biased, liberal, fake news media.”

Stay thirsty my friends, but don’t drink that liberal Kool-Aid!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 28, 2018 0

“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” and so would Ben Carson’s name if he were a liberal.

According to Breanna Edwards, for Essence Magazine, “The Detroit School Board voted 6-1 last week to rename Benjamin Carson High School of Science and Medicine.”

She goes on to say, “There was a time when Ben Carson was highly revered. His contribution to medicine as a neurosurgeon cannot be denied. But ever since Carson found himself working with President Donald Trump (and opening his mouth about politics in general), that admiration has largely fallen by the wayside.”

(So let me get this straight; Ben Carson was chosen by The President to be a part of his Cabinet and head The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (something Detroit has no need of, I say sarcastically), one of only 15 executive departments…, and this somehow detracted from his accomplishments and lessened his admiration?)

(Let’s do a quick review of Ben Carson’s story. According to Biography.com, Ben Carson was born in Detroit, Michigan!!! His mother, though under-educated herself, pushed her sons to read and believe in themselves. Carson went from being a poor student to receiving academic honors and eventually attending medical school. As a doctor, he became director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital at age 33 and earned fame for his groundbreaking work separating conjoined twins. In 2000, the Library of Congress selected Carson as one of its “Living Legends.” The following year, CNN and Time magazine named Carson as one of the nation’s 20 foremost physicians and scientists. In 2006, he received the Spingarn Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the NAACP. In February 2008, President George W. Bush awarded Carson the Ford’s Theatre Lincoln Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He retired from medicine in 2013, and two years later he entered politics, and made a bid to become the Republican candidate for U.S. president. After Donald Trump was elected president, he nominated Carson to become the secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development which, of course, he later became. That’s a pretty impressive resume’, and an impressive life worth celebrating in all communities, but especially in the African American community.)

So what did the Detroit school board do? They voted last week to rename the Benjamin Carson High School of Science And Medicine.

Brilliant. We certainly don’t want Black children, or any children for that matter, emulating someone like Ben Carson! Why, they might end up being self-sufficient and actually take responsibility for themselves! You know…, all of that “conservative” and “racist” ideology!

Hey! Maybe I can be of some help here! Let me respectfully submit some suggestions to the “honorable” Detroit School Board for potential school names.

How about the “Maxine Waters School for the Cognitively Challenged?”

Or, “Michelle Obamas Culinary Arts for Public Schools Academy?”

“Cory Booker’s Spartacus School of Self Defense?”

“President Barack Hussein Obama’s Islamic Preparatory School?”

“Sheila Jackson Lee’s School of Revisionist History?”

“Elijah Cummings Alzheimer’s Research Institute?”

Or maybe “Frederica Wilson’s School of Fashion?”

“The high school isn’t the only building that is being slated for a possible rename, however. Earlier this year the panel approved a new policy to commemorate, name and rename school buildings and facilities, giving the board the option to change a school’s name to honor ‘individuals who have made a significant contribution to the enhancement of education.’”

The Detroit News writes: “The board also can select another name under circumstances that include when a building is newly built or redesigned, where the name no longer reflects the current student population or ‘the community of the geographic area where the school is located requests a name change that more closely aligns with the history of the locality, or information newly discovered about the current name of the school is negative in nature.’”

Among those who want Carson’s name removed from the high school, however, is LaMar Lemmons, a board member, who claimed that residents “don’t support the [Trump] administration.”

(I think Mr. Lemmons needs to be reminded that President Trump won the state of Michigan in the 2016 election, and it had been almost 30 years since a republican had won the state.)

Last week, Lemmons told the Washington Post, that having Carson’s name on the school was “synonymous with having Trump’s name on our school in blackface.”

Carson, he contended, “is doing Trump’s bidding, and he has adversely affected the African American community in Detroit as well as the nation with his housing policies.”

(Yes, Mr. Lemmons, terribly adverse effects, like the lowest Black unemployment rate in history! That’s the lowest Black unemployment rate EVER in the history of our country! And regarding his housing policies, what President Trump basically did was lower the amount of federal money, by 9%, being used to subsidize states and cities who expect the entire country to pay for their foolishness, like Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Chicago and Detroit.)

“And he’s allied himself with a president that says he is a white nationalist and sends dog whistles that even the deaf can hear,” Lemmons added. (Or “dumb,” in your case, Mr. Lemmons! You do get credit for using the “biased, liberal, fake news media” buzzword, “Dog whistle, however! In my estimation, it is the Detroit School Board who are sending out “dog whistles” regarding prejudices against freedom of thought, freedom of political ideology, and the freedom of racial associations. They are also sending out the message that you really cannot be successful or exceptional in the eyes of the Black community unless you bow down to the liberal democrat masters along the way.)

The board voted 6-1 to change the name, but that doesn’t mean that it’s going to happen. The district is expected to have community meetings and issue surveys for each site to figure out if there is indeed any interest in renaming any facilities, and also to figure out possible new names. The results will be reported by the superintendent, who will make a final recommendation to the board.

So Benjamin Carson High School of Science and Medicine will still be, for now, at least until next school year.

Hey, didn’t Detroit have to file for bankruptcy back in 2013? Well, yes they did. And actually, it was the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history. This is what the democrats have contributed to the legacy of the city of Detroit, Michigan.

Maybe their city government should be more concerned with spending their money wisely and paying their bills as opposed to playing political games, regarding what name a school has, while running down one of the few good men that children, and the people, in Detroit have to look up to.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 26, 2018 2

Category: Trump

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

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

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

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.”

The “biased, liberal, fake news media” shows its true colors once again!

The “biased, liberal, fakes news media’s” take on President Trump’s recent FOX News interview. And my take on their take!

“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” and so would Ben Carson’s name if he were a liberal.

Subscribe to Blog via Email