Is California voter fraud a fraud?

According to Ed Kilgore of New York Magazine, and most liberals, it is. In a recent article, Mr. Kilgore calls “voter fraud” a “Republican myth.”

Commenting on Republicans’ questioning of the California voting process during the midterm election, “… they professed mystification at the final results. I say “professed” because it’s hard to believe Speaker Paul Ryan is as stupid as he sounds here:”

“The California election system ‘just defies logic to me,’ [former Speaker of The House, Paul] Ryan said during a Washington Post event.

‘“We were only down 26 seats the night of the [midterm] election and three weeks later, we lost basically every California race….’”

‘“In Wisconsin, we knew the next day. Scott Walker, my friend, I was sad to see him lose, but we accepted the results on Wednesday,’ Ryan said. In California, ‘their system is bizarre; I still don’t completely understand it. There are a lot of races there we should have won.’”

Kilgore adds that, “All in all, the situation in California was well summarized by the statewide elected official in charge of the system, Alex Padilla, [The Secretary of State for the state of California], in a tart response to [then Republican Speaker of The House, Paul] Ryan:”

‘“It is bizarre that Paul Ryan cannot grasp basic voting rights protections,’ Padilla said in a statement to ‘The Hill’….”

But…, “In just [the last] four years, the number of absentee ballots distributed in California has increased by 44 percent. ‘Nearly 13 million voters have received a ballot in the mail, compared to just 9 million in the last gubernatorial election in 2014,’ notes Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data Inc.”

‘“In California, we believe in an inclusive and accessible democracy. We provide voters as many opportunities as possible to cast their ballots,’ Padilla’s statement continues. ‘That is why we have no excuse vote by mail, automatic voter registration, same-day voter registration, and early voting. These reforms helped drive California’s historic registration and a 30 year high in midterm turnout.’”

Kilgore then adds, “This brouhaha might not matter if it did not feed the same myths of voter fraud that led Donald Trump to claim without a hint of evidence after the 2016 elections that ‘millions’ of illegal votes had been cast for Hillary Clinton in California, robbing him of a popular-vote plurality nationally. Going into 2020, this sort of loose talk needs to be debunked wherever possible, unless we want to risk the possibility of a GOP election defeat that is not simply questioned but denied.”

Okay Ed Kilgore, and all of your liberal friends…, my turn.

Liberals (democrats) are always quick to dismiss any concerns about voter fraud. They dismiss these concerns as if you were stating a concern about extraterrestrials (ETs) affecting the voting process.

This is exactly the case and the honest to God’s truth.

Let me state this again, “Liberals (democrats) are always quick to dismiss any concerns about voter fraud. They dismiss these concerns as if you were stating a concern about extraterrestrials (ETs) affecting the voting process.”

All I have to say is, “E.T…., phone home.”

The group “Judicial Watch” is currently suing California and Los Angeles County over “dirty” voter registration rolls.

Before I go any further, let’s see who “Judicial Watch” is.

Per “Judicial Watch’s” website:

Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach.

The motto of Judicial Watch is “Because no one is above the law”. To this end, Judicial Watch uses the open records or freedom of information laws and other tools to investigate and uncover misconduct by government officials and litigation to hold to account politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities.

Okay, back to talking about unicorns…, ooops, I mean voter fraud.

“Judicial Watch” has filed a federal lawsuit against Los Angeles County and the State of California over their failure to clean their voter rolls and to produce election-related records as required by the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

“Judicial Watch” argues that the State of California and a number of its counties, including the county of Los Angeles, have registration rates exceeding 100%!

According to “Judicial Watch,” “Eleven of California’s 58 counties have registration rates exceeding 100% of the age-eligible citizenry.”

“Los Angeles County has more voter registrations on its voter rolls than it has citizens who are old enough to register. Specifically, according to data provided to and published by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), Los Angeles County has a registration rate of 112% of its adult citizen population.”

Why is this important to note? Well, besides the obvious concerns about potential fraudulent votes, Los Angeles County is particularly noteworthy because of the number of potential voters it represents.

Here are a couple interesting facts:

There are only 7 states that have larger populations than Los Angeles County!

Los Angeles County has a larger population that Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware and Washington DC combined!

So when we’re talking about the numbers of potential fraudulent votes in Los Angeles County, and California overall, we’re talking about millions of votes. That is nothing to sneeze at or dismiss out of hand.

Judicial Watch points out that, “About 21% of all of California’s voter registrations, or more than one in five, are designated as ‘inactive.’”

“California has the highest rate of inactive registrations of any state in the country…, [and] Los Angeles County has the highest number of inactive registrations of any single county in the country.”

Interesting.

Judicial Watch explains that, “Even though a registration is officially designated as “inactive,” it may still be voted on Election Day and is still on the official voter registration list. The inactive registrations of voters who have moved to a different state “are particularly vulnerable to fraudulent abuse by a third party” because the voter who has moved “is unlikely to monitor the use of or communications concerning an old registration.” Inactive registrations “are also inherently vulnerable to abuse by voters who plan to fraudulently double-vote in two different jurisdictions on the same Election Day.”

Judicial Watch has sent numerous written requests for public records pertaining to their voter lists and inactive registrations, but was stonewalled each time. In other cases their requests were just ignored by “The People’s Republic of California.”

“California may have the dirtiest election rolls in the country,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up their voting rolls. Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. This lawsuit aims to ensure that citizens of California can have more confidence that their elections are fair and honest.”

Judicial Watch has previously filed successful lawsuits against Ohio and Indiana that resulted in those states taking several actions to clean up their voting rolls. Judicial Watch is currently suing Kentucky over its failure to remove ineligible voters, and is suing the State of Maryland and Montgomery County over their failure to release voting-related records.

So, there you have it.

Please tell us again, Ed Kilgore, how, “Voter fraud is just a Republican myth.”

Please tell us again, Mr. Kilgore, how “stupid” we are for even thinking there might be something to be concerned about here.

Please explain to us again, Mr. Alex Padilla, how, “In California, we believe in an inclusive and accessible democracy. We provide voters as many opportunities as possible to cast their ballots.”

What this translates to is, “In California, we believe in giving democrats access to every opportunity in order to guarantee their candidates get as many votes as is necessary to win.”

Please tell us again, Ed Kilgore, about, “The myths of voter fraud that led Donald Trump to claim without a hint of evidence after the 2016 elections that ‘millions’ of illegal votes had been cast for Hillary Clinton in California, robbing him of a popular-vote plurality nationally.”

Again, we see that President Trump was probably right, again.

Please tell us again, Mr. Kilgore, how, “Going into 2020, this sort of loose talk needs to be debunked wherever possible, unless we want to risk the possibility of a GOP election defeat that is not simply questioned but denied.”

Oh…, Mr. Kilgore, you mean like how you and your democrat friends have not only “questioned but denied” Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016?

Is that what you mean?

Again we see that the hypocrisy and shamelessness of the democrats knows no bounds. They are willing to do absolutely ANYTHING to promote their candidates and their agenda…, ANYTHING.

As patriotic Americans, it is our duty to realize this and to continue to fight for honesty and fairness in the voting process and in our government in general.

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

February 5, 2019 1

Let the 2020 election games begin!

On one side we have President Trump…, and on the other side, the democrat side, we have an absolute, clueless, hot mess, with the goal of beating President Trump AT ANY COST.

But this may become a three-sided race if prior CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, decides to run for president in 2020 as an Independent candidate.

And Howard Schultz would be an interesting candidate.

What’s so interesting about him you ask?

Well…, let me tell ya.

First of all…, Howard Schultz would be running as an Independent candidate, even though he endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential campaign.

As most of us know by now…, labeling yourself as an “Independent,” politically, means you’re basically a liberal, and basically a democrat, but you want to set yourself aside to make yourself appear more independent, although really you’re not.

From what I’ve heard, Howard Schultz seems to talk a pretty good game, however.

According to Brittany De Lea for Fox Business, “Schultz called himself the ‘poster child of the American dream’ during an interview with CNN last May, having grown up in subsidized housing in Brooklyn to eventually becoming the chief executive of one of the nation’s largest and most prominent coffee and beverage chains.”

That’s a positive for him. Americans likes success stories.

‘“You have to ask yourself about the promise of America and the American dream,’ Schultz said. ‘And if it’s not available to everybody, if people feel as if the color of their skin or their station in life is not going to provide them the same opportunity as someone who is white and who has a better zip code then the country is not going to succeed in terms of its long-term aspirations.’”

Oh, that’s good! Having the proper amount of “white guilt” is definitely a requirement of the left. No one is going to argue with his basic point either. Americans generally like someone with a sense of fairness.

“Schultz has been critical of the national debt, which is currently more than $21 trillion. He said during a June interview with ‘Time’ the government needs a ‘centrist approach’ to spending. ‘There’s no for-profit business in the world that could sustain itself or survive with $20 trillion in debt,’ he said. ‘And we can’t keep pushing this. … It’s just not responsible.’”

I think most reasonable people would tend to agree with him here as well.

Schultz has been critical of President Trump, and during an interview with CBS, Schultz said Trump was “not qualified” to be president.

“We’re living at a most fragile time, not only the fact that this president is not qualified to be the president, but the fact that both parties are consistently not doing what’s necessary on behalf of the American people,” Schultz told “60 Minutes” recently.

This statement is where he runs into some problems. If President Trump isn’t qualified to be president, then what makes him qualified to be president?

He does quickly tie-in the problem of both major parties “not doing what’s necessary on behalf of the American people,” however, which most people would agree with as well.

The “60 Minutes” appearance didn’t go as smoothly as expected, however. As Schultz began to speak, on another topic, he was interrupted by a heckler, who was eventually escorted out by security.

“Don’t help elect Trump, you egotistical billionaire a–hole,” the protester shouted. “Go back to getting ratioed [“Ratioed” is new social media term that refers to the negative response that a tweet gets.] on Twitter. Go back to Davos with the other billionaire elite who think they know how to run the world. That’s not what democracy means.”

That’s pretty harsh, and pretty elitist, with the reference to “Davos” (Davos, Switzerland, plays host to the World Economic Forum, an annual meeting of global political and business élites) and the attempt to own what “democracy” means while accusing others of trying to “run the world.”

This wasn’t your average run of the mill heckler. He was hired and planted there by somebody, I would guess.

Julia Limitone, of FOX Business, reports that, “Schultz is also being criticized by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is also considering a 2020 run as a Democrat. In a [recent] Tweet, the billionaire lambasted third-party candidates saying they would help re-elect Trump.”

‘“In 2020, the great likelihood is that an independent would just split the anti-Trump vote and end up re-electing the President,’ he said.”

So, just in case anybody didn’t already realize this, Mr. Bloomberg is officially sounding the alarm.

“Although Schultz has described himself as a ‘lifelong Democrat’ he isn’t connecting with some ideas floated by members of the democrat party [indicating he has a fully functional brain], especially newly minted house Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s tax plan.”

‘“I think I respect the Democratic Party. I no longer feel affiliated because I don’t think their views represent the majority of Americans,’ he said. ‘I don’t think we want a 70 percent income tax in America and I certainly don’t think we can afford the things they are suggesting.’”

It appears that Schultz, based on what he says at least, is more aligned with the democrats, socially, but more aligned with conservatives, and basic common sense, economically. He’s trying to walk an ideological tightrope here.

According to Megan Henney, of FOX Business, “Ex-Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz [thinks] every American has the right to affordable health care,” but that, “…he wouldn’t feel comfortable running for office as a Democrat.”

Get ready to watch the “barbecuing” of Howard Schultz begin!

Even though Howard Schultz leans to “the left,” and describes himself as a “lifelong Democrat,” he is now the second most dangerous person in the country, right behind President Trump, from “the swamp’s” point of view.

This is because it is believed he would take votes from the establishment liberal democrat candidate, thus helping President Trump win the election.

Mr. Schultz is putting a big target on his back.

The attacks on him by the democrats and the “biased, liberal, fake news media” will only be rivaled by the on-going attacks on President Trump.

“The swamp” has already started the attack on him by questioning and pointing out how much of his fortune he contributes to charity.

Megan Henney continues by saying, “The 65-year-old billionaire has drawn ire since announcing that he’s mulling a presidential bid for his criticism of wealth tax plans proposed by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who announced her own presidential bid this month, that are intended to reduce income inequality in the U.S.”

‘“However, when I see Elizabeth Warren come out with a ridiculous plan of taxing wealthy people a surtax of 2 percent because it makes a good headline or sends out a tweet when she knows for a fact that’s not something that’s ever gonna be passed, this is what’s wrong,’ he said during an interview on NPR’s ‘Morning Edition.’ ‘You can’t just attack these things in a punitive way by punishing people.’”

“Schultz, who stepped down as CEO of Starbucks in 2017, would likely be subject to Warren’s ‘ultra-millionaire tax,’ which would create a 2 percent wealth tax on people with more than $50 million assets and a 3 percent tax on people with more than $1 billion.”

So, he’s openly attacking the socialist’s…, ooops, I mean the democrat’s newest rising star, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and her sister in mind and spirit, Elizabeth Warren?

He’s got guts…, I’ll give him that…, but he’s putting himself at odds with the PC and socialist “group think” mob who only believes in free speech if that speech agrees with their beliefs and political agenda.

While the horde of potential 2020 democrat candidates compete to see who is willing to give away the most money in order to win the election, Mr. Schultz may actually be the liberals “voice of reason,” and their best chance at defeating President Trump.

But of course, “the swamp” isn’t actually interested about doing what’s right for America. Their only interested in gaining control and gaining power.

So, they, “the swamp,” will chew up and spit out Mr. Schultz in short order and quickly get back to the business of beating President trump AT ALL COSTS.

If he does officially announce he’s running for president, I’m sure we’ll see the usual playbook pulled out, which will include charges of inappropriate dealings with women, inappropriate money dealings, and charges of racism if needed.

“Vox,” (“Vox” is an American news and opinion website owned by Vox Media.) recently ran an article titled, “Dear billionaires: stop running for president,” in reference to Mr. Schultz. It’s funny, but they didn’t seem to have an issue with Oprah running for president when she was out their floating the idea.

You’re only an “acceptable” billionaire if you can manage to check off the appropriate “swampy” boxes.

It’s quite amazing actually, because it wasn’t much more than a year ago, Howard Schultz was the toast of “liberal town,” while, “Investors warn a ‘liberal agenda’ is killing Starbucks’s business,” according to Clint Rainey for New York Magazine.

While Howard Schultz was still at the helm of Starbuck’s, he tried to “mix coffee with social justice.” His refugee hiring plan, which came in reaction to President Trump’s travel ban, ignited a pretty swift conservative backlash and a pretty swift liberal “seal of approval.”

The company’s investors, “Were demanding that Starbucks [Schultz] rethink its ‘liberal political stances,’ and just in general stop the ‘attacks on President Donald Trump.’ They [the investors] argue that Schultz in particular is ‘obviously’ liberal, ‘perhaps even anti-conservative,’ and worry the CEO’s politics have tainted the brand for consumers who disagree ideologically, in turn causing the brand’s public perception to seriously plummet, which surveys show has happened, and which is never a good thing for sales numbers.”

It seems that Howard Schultz should have qualified as being “far left” enough…, but that was over a year ago, and the democrats have moved even further to the left.

So, in the final analysis here, Howard Shultz could have been a pretty formidable democrat candidate, if he wasn’t so reasonable.

It seems that reason won’t get you anywhere in the democrat party these days.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

February 1, 2019 0

“All hail ‘Creepy Uncle’ Joe Biden! America’s racial compass!”

“The bottom line is we have a lot to root out, but most of all the ‘systematic racism’ that most of us whites don’t like to acknowledge even exists,” Biden said at an event hosted by the Rev. Al Sharpton (another individual who portends to be a representative of our national racial conscience) and the National Action Network. “We don’t even consciously acknowledge it. But it’s been built into every aspect of our system.”

He continued, “Because when your schools are substandard, when your houses are undervalued, when your car insurance costs more for no apparent reason, when poverty rates for black Americans is still twice that of white Americans…, there’s something we have to admit. Not you, we, White America, has to admit there’s a still a systematic racism. And it goes almost unnoticed by so many of us.”

So here we apparently have our newest “buzzword” to be included in the racial inequality narrative.

“Systematic racism.”

According to Jenée Desmond-Harris of “Vox” media, ‘“Systemic racism’ is used to talk about all of the policies and practices entrenched in established institutions that harm certain racial groups and help other racial groups. ‘Systemic’ distinguishes what’s happening here from individual racism or overt discrimination, and refers to the way this operates in major parts of US society: the economy, politics, education, and more.”

So basically, “systematic racism” is a comprehensive excuse to explain away any kind of failure or any kind of negative situation being experienced by anyone other than white people…, that puts the blame on White people.

John Verhovek of Good Morning America added that, “Biden also expressed optimism that positive change is on its way, referencing the historic nature of the presidential inauguration he attended 10 years ago this weekend, when Barack Obama became the nation’s first African-American president.”

Yes, “Creepy Uncle” Joe, but it’s a damn shame that Barack Obama didn’t do much more than just become the nation’s first African-American president. He categorically failed to positively move the needle for African-Americans in any regard, while alienating many of the Whites who helped get him elected. .

‘“There I was, it just hit me, standing, waiting for a black man to come 28 miles from Philadelphia to pick me up and take me on a 128-mile ride to be sworn in as president and vice president United States. Don’t tell me, don’t tell me things can’t change!’ Biden said to applause.”

What this last quote means exactly I’m not sure. But I can safely say that if Blacks were the majority race in this country, at the percentage that Whites have been, and are now, we would have never seen, and would never see, a White president.

If anyone feels they have an argument to be made against my claim, please email me and make your case. I promise to publish all of your responses in a future blog.

Oh…, and “Creepy Uncle” Joe…, speak for yourself please. None of us other “whiteys” have been in a position to do anything about your supposed “systematic racism…,” but you have!

You’ve been in politics since 1969 “Uncle Joe! That’s 50 years!

No one should be in politics for 50 years.

You were in the U.S. Senate from 1972-2009. That’s 37 years!

No one should be in in the U.S. Senate for 37 years.

You were the Vice President of the United States from 2009-2017. That’s 8 years!

What exactly did YOU do to deal with YOUR perceived “systematic racism?”

I mean besides using it to help get you re-elected?

Just sayin’.

P.S. – Did you know that Joe Biden’s middle name is “Robinette?” No comment…, just throwing that out there for what it’s worth.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 29, 2019 0

Let’s get one thing clear…, Robert Mueller knew from the start there was no Russian collusion by President Trump or anyone on his team.

Yes folks…, it’s true.

The Mueller investigation was designed to be a diversionary tactic to keep our eyes off of “the swamp” (specifically former President Obama, his administration, the FBI, the DOJ, Hillary Clinton and the DNC). It was designed to be an ongoing attack against President Trump and an ongoing point of contention to be used by the “biased, liberal, fake news media.” And it was conceived as a “witch hunt” to punish anyone who may have been a friend or an associate of Donald Trump.

The Mueller investigation is a “bastard child” that was born out of illegality, illegitimacy and false pretenses to begin with.

Yet this treasonous and shameless excuse for an “investigation” is still breathing and still moving forward.

So what’s the latest jewel in Mueller’s crown?

The indictment of Roger Stone, who was a former political consultant for Donald Trump, up until August of 2015.

According to Ashley May of USA TODAY, “A group of heavily armed FBI agents stormed Roger Stone’s Florida home on Friday morning, as seen in a dramatic CNN video.”

“About a dozen officers outfitted with flashlights, bullet-proof vests and tactical gear surrounded the home.”

Ya…, you wouldn’t want this 66 year grandfather to make a run for it! Ha!

“In the video, an agent is heard pounding on the door and announcing ‘FBI! Open the door!’ Then, he shouts ‘FBI! Warrant!’”

“The door opens and a shadow that appears to be Stone can be seen. CNN reports Stone answered the door wearing his glasses and sleepwear.”

This whole episode was obviously choreographed for dramatic effect.

And how was it again that CNN happened to be there to document the whole thing?

Anyway…, back to Stone’s indictment.

What is Stone being indicted for?

Collusion with the Russians?

No.

Tampering with the election of 2016?

No.

According to Alex Pappas and Catherine Herridge of Fox News, “President Trump’s former longtime political adviser is charged with obstruction, making false statements and witness tampering over his alleged contact with Trump campaign officials about WikiLeaks.”

“For months, Stone has warned that he could be indicted, saying in public he believed Mueller was investigating whether he had advance knowledge of WikiLeaks releasing hacked emails of Democrats during the 2016 campaign. Stone has repeatedly denied the accusation.”

So just to be clear here…, we’re not supposed to be upset about what was in the emails, but just the fact that they were hacked and released.

Roger Stone has questioned, “Where is the crime? I engaged in politics.”

The problem, Roger, is that you engaged in politics in support of Donald Trump and not “the swamp.”

“No matter how much pressure they put on me, no matter what they say I will not bear false witness against Donald Trump,” Stone has said. “I will not do what Michael Cohen has done and make up lies to ease the pressure on myself.”

“Mueller’s investigation, which was initially ordered to look into the 2016 election, has gone on for more than a year and half. It has expanded to probe financial crimes of Trump associates before the election, conversations Trump’s national security adviser had with the Russians during the transition and whether Trump obstructed justice with his comments and actions related to the probe,” reports Alex Pappas.

Let’s take a look down memory lane and see the list of people charged by Mueller and his “hit squad:”

Twenty-six Russian nationals and three Russian companies have been charged with interfering in the 2016 presidential election.

These charges were made “for show” only. These individuals and companies will never have their day in court here, or have an opportunity to defend themselves. These charges were a waste of time and just an easy opportunity to keep the Russian narrative alive.

“Other convictions include: former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, who both pleaded guilty to making false statements in 2017.”

So no charges involving Russian collusion or charges implicating President trump in any way.

“Former campaign adviser Rick Gates in 2018 pleaded guilty and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted and later pleaded guilty in a separate financial crimes case dating back before the 2016 election.”

Again, no charges involving Russian collusion or charges implicating President trump in any way.

“Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements in a case brought by Mueller in November. Alex van der Zwaan, a London-based lawyer, pleaded guilty to making false statements this year, and Richard Pinedo, a California man, pleaded guilty to identity fraud in 2018.”

So…, again, no charges involving Russian collusion or charges implicating President Trump in any way.

In summary, none of President Trump’s associates or anyone connected to President Trump in any way have been charged with crimes related to collusion.

So there you have it.

So what do we really have here?

A “WITCH HUNT” and A FARCE!!!

Just as President Trump has said, over and over.

“The swamp” will not go quietly. In fact it isn’t going anywhere. But, we can make a dent in it, and at least make them realize we are paying attention now, and the effort to expose their agendas and propaganda are not going away.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 25, 2019 0

Our friend Cher is at it again! She claims, “America is unsafe for anyone that isn’t a white Trump supporter!”

Cher has taken to social media…, again…, to declare American unsafe for anyone who isn’t a white Trump supporter.

Well that’s not racist at all!

Her rant follows a Supreme Court ruling that allows the Pentagon to restrict military service for transgender individuals.

According to Tyler McCarthy of Fox News, “Cher, who is typically outspoken about her distaste for the Trump administration, took to the [Twitter] platform to criticize the ruling, which grants authority to enforce a ban on those who identify as transgender from serving in the military while lower courts continue to argue the legality of the policy.”

“No One Is Really Safe In trump’s America Unless They’re MEMBERS OF MAR-A-LAGO, LIVE IN trump TOWER,White, OR WEARS MAGA HAT,” Cher wrote on Twitter. “My Amazing Trans Son Is Kind,Smart,Strong Loving, Talented,&Patriotic American. Trump “Judges NO ONE By The Content Of Their Character.”

Oh really, Cher? Do you mean “not safe” like when conservative politicians or staff are harassed and attacked in restaurants and other public places like “Low IQ” Maxine Waters instructed them to do?

Or maybe you’re referring to “not being safe” like when conservative speakers are scheduled to speak at one of our institutions of higher learning and conservative students are attacked, building are trashed and fires are started? Is that what you mean?

How about “not being safe” like when your friendly ANTIFA hit squads attack peaceful conservative supporters or protesters?

No wait…, I know! It must be like when republican congressmen are used for target practice while practicing for a friendly game of softball! That’s it!

Excuse me, Cher, but you are so F-O-S!

And Tyler McCarthy of Fox News says, “This is just the latest in a recent stream of tweets from Cher. While her comments on the transgender military ban are new, she’s been vehemently against the ongoing government shutdown, blaming Donald Trump and calling for Nancy Pelosi and Democrats to give in to his demands for border security funding.”

Here’s a sampling of more of her recent tweets:

“NANCY PLEASE…. Give THE HEARTLESS BASTARD His BloodMoney,Then Nail His Mammoth A– to The Barn Door ON EVERYTHING ELSE‼️”

“BEAT HIM TO A PULP IN CONGRESS‼️ITS NOT RIGHT TO DO THIS TO OUR PPL🇺🇸‼️”

“WE ARE NOT SAFE BECAUSE OF trump.NOTHING CAN BE WORTH THIS,” she tweeted prior to her comments on the military ban.

In a more recent tweet, Cher called out the president directly.

“TRUMP’S DESTROYING [America] MAKING US UNSAFE.I DONT GIVE A FLYING F— ABOUT HIS WALL,WHO BLINKS FIRST, WHO WINS GAME OF [CHICKEN]. COASTGUARD’S TOP ADMIRAL SAYS”THIS CANT GO ON”.FBI SAYS THERE WONT B MANPOWER 2KEEP US SAFE. DEMS,DOES A HOUSE HAVE 2 FALL ON UR SISTER,4 U 2 GET IT.(Wiz of Oz),” she wrote.

This is a good example of what happens when you get the majority of your information from the “biased, liberal, fake news media,” like CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC.

Why do these aging Hollywood dinosaurs, like Cher here, Barbra Streisand, Robert DeNiro, et al, insist on displaying their ignorance and stupidity on a regular basis?

It is, of course, their right, but how about getting a clue once in a while!?

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 25, 2019 0

Go for it Mr. President!

With all due respect Mr. President, please all allow me to offer you my advice related to the current partial government shutdown.

If ending the government shutdown truly depends on either side compromising on building the wall, this shutdown could last for a very long time, which really isn’t a good thing in the end.

After discussing my intentions privately with the republican Senate and House leadership, I would tell Nancy Peloser and Upchuck Schumer that I was ready to reopen and fund the government, without any money for the wall at this point, and that if they sent legislation up to my office, I would sign it.

After my signing it, I’m sure Peloser and Upchuck would quickly proceed to hold a victory press conference to rub your nose in it.

But wait…, I’m coming to the good part!

The moment they began their victory speech, I would declare a state of emergency on our southern border and immediately begin construction of the wall. Thus upstaging their announcement, while robbing them of gloating over their victory, and ending the shutdown at the same time.

You might as well get it over with and declare the emergency, because the democrats are going to challenge you in court no matter what you do, so you might as well get the ball rolling. The sooner we get the process moving, the sooner it can get to The Supreme Court, at which time they will deem you are within your rights as The President to do what you have done, and we can get on with securing our border.

Every few weeks now we see another “caravan” has formed, with thousands of people, and is preparing to march through Mexico and challenge our southern border.

If having to deal with these invaders on a weekly basis isn’t a national emergency, what is?

And this is on top of the “normal” amount of drug smuggling and human trafficking.

I would not be overly concerned about setting precedent here. Was Nancy concerned about setting one with the State of the Union address?

And like it has been pointed out before, if these illegal immigrants were turning around and voting for republicans, the wall would be so big you’d be able to see it from space.

The democrats are going to do what they need to do going forward and so should we, and so should you.

Don’t do what a politician would do. Do what a patriot and a leader would do.

Go for it Mr. President!

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

Like you said, “One way or another.”

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 25, 2019 0

“The state of our Union is…?”

The state of our Union is…, at a crossroads.

Not only is the state of our Union at a crossroads, The State of the Union address itself is at a crossroads.

Speaker of the House, California democrat, Nancy Pelosi, has chosen to throw all congressional tradition and decency to the wayside and disinvite President Trump to give his State of the Union address in the House of Representatives.

She weakly, and unsupported by the truth, suggested that, “it may be difficult to provide security for the event because of the partial government shutdown.”

“Sadly, given the security concerns and unless the government re-opens this week, I suggest that we work together to determine another suitable date after government has re-opened for this address or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union address in writing to Congress on January 29,” Pelosi wrote.

A senior Homeland Security official later told Fox News, however, that they have been preparing for months for the State of the Union event [and that they had no security concerns as referred to by Mrs. Pelosi].

“We are ready,” the official said. “Despite the fact members of the Secret Service are not being paid, the protective mission has not changed.”

According to Alex Pappas and John Roberts of Fox News, “White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley accused Pelosi of ‘trying to play politics with that venue.’ He also dinged the speaker for suggesting it may be difficult to provide security for the event because of the partial government shutdown.”

‘“If the Secret Service can protect the president of the United States on a trip to Iraq, chances are they can protect the American president in the halls of Congress,’ Gidley said.”

“A spokesman for Pelosi did not return a request for comment. Neither did the House Sergeant at Arms office.”

According to History.House.gov:

“Including President Donald J. Trump’s 2018 address, there have been a total of 95 in-person Annual Messages/State of the Union Addresses.

“Since President Woodrow Wilson’s 1913 address, there have been a total of 83 in-person addresses.”

“The formal basis for the State of the Union Address is from the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3, Clause 1, ‘The President shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.’”

Never one to let the Constitution get in her way, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has strongly urged the president to delay the speech or submit it in writing amid the government shutdown fight.

Be careful Nancy, you may get what you’re wishing for!

In my opinion, it seems like you are actually doing President Trump a big favor, Nancy. Not only are you making yourself and your party look petty and foolish, you are providing President Trump with an excuse to give his State of the Union address somewhere other than the stodgy, old, predictable halls of Congress.

Wouldn’t it be awesome to see The President give his address to a crowd of 20-30 thousand supporters in a rally type of atmosphere in say Columbus, Ohio, or in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, or perhaps in Jacksonville, Florida?

Is that what you want Nancy?

Somehow I don’t think so.

But I sure would!

I can hear the standing room only crowd now, screaming, “BUILD THAT WALL! BUILD THAT WALL! BUILD THAT WALL!” “USA, USA, USA” “FOUR MORE YEARS!” “LOCK HER UP! and that “oldie but a goodie,” “CNN SUCKS!” Maybe we’ll even hear President Trump’s newest slogan, “BUILD A WALL & CRIME WILL FALL!”

It’s a beautiful thing.

Have you heard the old saying, “Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer,” Nancy?

Letting President Trump out of Washington D.C. would be doing him and all of his supporters a big favor.

It would nice a nice change of pace to watch The State of the Union address without having to see all of those grouchy democrats sitting on their hands, falling asleep, and just generally being disrespectful.

“At the moment, however, President Trump intends to be at the Capitol next Tuesday to deliver his speech as scheduled, sources said. White House officials told Fox News they essentially are preparing for two tracks for next week’s speech. The preferred track is an address, as per custom, at the Capitol. The second track is a backup plan for a speech outside of Washington, D.C.”

In the end, whether or not the speech is welcomed on the House floor is up to comrade Pelosi.

The way it stands now, welcome or not, President Trump has a “get out of jail free” card and he should take his “show” on the road!

Winning!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 24, 2019 0

“Damn the Torpedoes!” …, and “Damn the Truth!” …, “Damn the Facts!” while you’re at it!

The “biased, liberal, fake news media,” along with the other typical cast of confused liberal characters, not only got this whole story wrong…, AGAIN…, but then spent hours and hours castigating and crucifying these poor Catholic school kids, while promoting their own racist narrative.

According to Robby Soave via Reason.com, “‘Journalists’ who uncritically accepted Nathan Phillips’ story got this completely wrong…”

“Partial video footage of students from a Catholic high school (the key word here being ‘partial’) allegedly harassing a Native American veteran after the anti-abortion March for Life rally in Washington, D.C., [on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial] on Saturday quickly went viral, provoking widespread condemnation of the kids on social media. Various media figures and Twitter users called for them to be doxed, shamed, or otherwise punished, and school administrators said they would consider expulsion.”

BUT…, the rest of the video, over two hours of additional footage, shows what happened before and after the incident, and adds important context that strongly contradicts the media’s racist, anti-white, anti-Catholic, narrative.

The full video clearly shows that Nathan Phillips, an Omaha tribal elder, approached the students and was the one who taunted them and not the other way around.

Robby Soave continues by saying, “Far from engaging in racially motivated harassment, the group of mostly white, MAGA-hat-wearing male teenagers remained relatively calm and restrained despite being subjected to incessant racist, homophobic, and bigoted verbal abuse by members of the bizarre religious sect Black Hebrew Israelites (BHI), who were lurking nearby. [The BHI called the school kids ‘crackers,’ ‘faggots,’ and ‘pedophiles.’ They also called one of the black students the ‘n-word’ and then told him that his friends are going to ‘murder him and steal his organs.’ Throughout the video they threaten the kids with violence, and attempt to goad them into attacking first. The students resisted these taunts admirably: They laughed at the hecklers, and they perform a few of their school’s sports cheers.]”

“The BHI has existed since the late 19th century, and is best described as a ‘black nationalist’ cult movement; its members believe they are descendants of the ancient Israelites, and often express condemnation of white people, Christians, and gays. DC-area Black Hebrews are known to spout particularly vile bigotry.”

The “biased, liberal, fake news media” of course relates more with the BHI as opposed to Catholic high school students. Go figure!

“Phillips put himself between the teens and the black nationalists, chanting and drumming as he marched straight into the middle of the group of young people. [At this point, one of the Native Americans with Phillips shouts: ‘White people, go back to Europe. This is not your land,’ and he curses the students with ‘f-bombs.’] What followed was several minutes of confusion: The teens couldn’t quite decide whether Phillips was on their side or not, but tentatively joined in his chanting. It’s not at all clear this was intended as an act of mockery rather than solidarity.”

Organizers of the March for Life, the annual antiabortion event that had drawn the teenagers to the nation’s capital, initially called the students’ behavior “reprehensible,” but, in a revised statement, said, “It is clear from new footage and additional accounts that there is more to this story than the original video captured.”

Wow. Was there no one here that didn’t jump to conclusions?

Doesn’t that always seem to be the case? Isn’t it the responsibility of “the media” to make sure that what they are seeing or what they are told is the whole story? It seems that our current crop of “journalists” just expect stories to be “spoon fed” to them and they just run with them “sight unseen.”

The students’ congressman, Representative Thomas Massie, a republican from Kentucky, praised the students, tweeting that “in the face of racist and homosexual slurs, the young boys refused to reciprocate or disrespect anyone.”

Mr. Soave also feels, “The boys are undoubtedly owed an apology from the numerous people who joined this social media pile-on. This is shaping up to be one of the biggest major media misfires in quite some time.”

Oh…, you mean since way back to the “BuzzFeed” article? All the way back to last week? Is that the “in quite some time” you’re referring to?

And even CNN’s Jake Tapper admitted the [biased, liberal, fake news] media’s error:

“.@reason: “Video footage strongly contradicts Native American veteran Nathan Phillips’ claim that Covington Catholic High School boys harassed him. The media got this one completely wrong,” writes @robbysoave https://t.co/9Ki4iiTkQ9

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 20, 2019”

Of course, we haven’t seen any of the same “reporters” on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC spend any time “on air” apologizing for their foolishness and apologizing for jumping to their own racist conclusions.

Some of the students from Covington Catholic High School were also attacked by the “biased, liberal, fake news media” for wearing their red “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) hats.

These kids are from Kentucky. If you were one of them and making a trip to Washington D.C., and you were a fan of our president, where would be a better place to wear your MAGA hat and show your support than while you were out in the nation’s capital?

Isaac Stanley-Becker, writing for the Washington Post says, “At first, politicians ‘sounded the alarm.’ Celebrities professed outrage. School officials joined the Catholic Diocese of Covington in apologizing for the students, who were threatened as their private information poured out online.”

Excuse me…, again, but the “biased, liberal, fake news media” are truly a bunch of “biased, liberal, fake news,” race baiting idiots.

Of course, by virtue of the MAGA hats, President Trump was dragged into the whole fake “disgustingly racial” issue.

The President blamed the media, and rightfully so, for the fallout, which he said was responsible for “early judgements proving out to be false.”

He responded by tweeting:

“Nick Sandmann and the students of Covington have become symbols of Fake News and how evil it can be. They have captivated the attention of the world, and I know they will use it for the good – maybe even to bring people together. It started off unpleasant, but can end in a dream!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 22, 2019”

Actress, a leading voice in the #MeToo movement, an outspoken critic of Mr. Trump, and self-proclaimed liberal activist, Alyssa Milano, whose opinion matters why? Tweeted:

“The red MAGA hat is the new white hood. (Obviously jumping off the deep end and equating Red MAGA hats to Ku Klux Klan hoods.)

Without white boys being able to empathize with other people, humanity will continue to destroy itself. #FirstThoughtsWhenIWakeUp

— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) January 20, 2019”

Well, miss “#FirstThoughtsWhenIWakeUp,” MAYBE YOU SHOULD WAKE UP first before spewing your racist ignorance all over the internet!

Perhaps, Alyssa, you and your liberal friends should start wearing YOUR new MAGA equivalent hats…, DUNCE HATS!

The same media figures and Twitter users who called for the Covington students be “doxed, shamed, or otherwise punished,” should themselves be “doxed, shamed, or otherwise punished.”

Hey…, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

That is correct (I’m answering myself here), everywhere EXCEPT in the “biased, Liberal, fake news” world, where there is an extreme double standard, and a level of hypocrisy which knows no bounds and knows no shame.

Remember, stay thirsty (for the truth) my friends, and don’t drink the liberal Kool Aide!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 23, 2019 0

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

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

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

So, who is this guy?

First off, he’s a lawyer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He rejoined Kirkland and Ellis in 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh…, c’mon!

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

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

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

Just sayin’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ll keep you posted.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 22, 2019 0

“Dan Rather and the birth of fake news?” No, “Dan Rather and the ‘biased, liberal, fake news media’ finally got exposed!”

I’m referring to a new documentary on Fox Nation, which is Fox News Channel’s new subscription-based, on-demand streaming service.

Some of you might be asking, “Who the heck is Dan Rather?” Well, in case you’re not familiar with him, Dan Rather began his career in Texas and was on the scene of the Kennedy assassination in Dallas in 1963. His reporting elevated his position in CBS News, where he was The White House correspondent beginning in 1964. He served as foreign correspondent in London and Vietnam over the next two years before returning to The White House correspondent position, covering the Nixon presidency, including the trip to China, Watergate scandal and his ultimate resignation.

When Walter Cronkite (“America’s newsman”) retired in 1981, Rather was promoted to news anchor for the CBS Evening News, a role he then occupied for 24 years. Rather was one of the “Big Three” nightly news anchors in the U.S. from the 1980s through the early 2000s.

Okay, so now let’s get back to the story.

According to Art Moore of WND.com (World Net Daily), “Long before ‘fake news’ became an issue on Capitol Hill, a news story that threatened to derail George W. Bush’s re-election was debunked by bloggers, launching a new era of citizen journalism challenging the establishment-media gatekeepers.”

The report from September of 2004 that led to Dan Rather’s resignation as the anchor of CBS News is the focus of a new documentary, “Black Eye: Dan Rather and the Birth of Fake News.”

In the case being highlighted here, Mr. Rather and his team presented memos, supposedly from 1973, indicating George W. Bush had received special treatment during his time in the Texas Air National Guard that prevented him from be deployed in Vietnam.

“But bloggers who examined the documents posted on the CBS News website found they had been produced by a Microsoft Word processor that didn’t exist in 1973,” added Art Moore of WND.com.

CBS initially defended the documents, but after two weeks of further scrutiny concluded their authenticity could not be proved and called its reporting a “mistake.”

The network fired producer Mary Mapes, and a little more than two months later Dan Rather resigned.

The good guys 1, fake news 0.

CBS later commissioned an “independent panel” that found “serious defects in the reporting and production” of the Sept. 8, 2004, segment on “60 Minutes Wednesday.”

Let’s get a few things clear here:

One, there was no real “independent panel.”

And two, there were no “serious defects in the reporting and production.” The story that was produced and reported on was done so intentionally to discredit George W. Bush.

Just like the hundreds and hundreds of “fake news” stories that have been manufactured and passed on to us as “news” since then all the way up till now.

In a 2006 radio interview, however, Mr. Rather defended his reporting and rejected the CBS panel’s findings.

No kidding.

The network stood by the “panel’s findings.”

No one man is bigger than “the swamp” itself.

The following year, Rather filed a lawsuit against CBS and its former corporate parent, Viacom, claiming he had been made a “scapegoat.” The suit was dismissed in 2009 by the New York State Appeals Court.

Dan Rather, who is now 86, has not commented on the new the documentary…, yet.

He did recently Tweet, however, “It‘s like we’re living through a bad parody of reality television,” he wrote. “But at least when that kind of stuff is on TV you know it isn’t really real and you can chose not to watch.”

Thanks for your input Dan. We can totally relate. It’s just like you were a “bad parody” of an unbiased news anchor.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 16, 2019 0

Category: united states

Is California voter fraud a fraud?

Let the 2020 election games begin!

“All hail ‘Creepy Uncle’ Joe Biden! America’s racial compass!”

Let’s get one thing clear…, Robert Mueller knew from the start there was no Russian collusion by President Trump or anyone on his team.

Go for it Mr. President!

“The state of our Union is…?”

“Damn the Torpedoes!” …, and “Damn the Truth!” …, “Damn the Facts!” while you’re at it!

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

“Dan Rather and the birth of fake news?” No, “Dan Rather and the ‘biased, liberal, fake news media’ finally got exposed!”

Subscribe to Blog via Email