Who’s guilty of inciting who?

The democrats and the establishment RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) are attempting to impeach President Trump…, again…, this time for “inciting violence,” which The President did not do.

The President encouraged the protesters there, last Wednesday, to go to the capitol and let their voices be heard, but there was no call for violence.

In fact, have you ever heard President Trump, or any republican for that matter, call for any kind of violence or personal attacks?

Ya…, me neither.

On the other hand, we have a documented history of many democrats doing exactly what they are accusing President Trump of doing.

Isn’t this becoming a pattern of behavior for the democrats?

Here are some (not all of the) examples of democrats calling for violence or physical confrontations against President Trump, people in his administration, and republican members of Congress.

Emma Colton, Social Media Manager for The Washington Examiner, reports, “Rep. Maxine Waters…, Sen. Cory Booker…, and Sen. Jon Tester, have all made comments suggesting violence or confrontations against Republicans. All of their Twitter accounts remain active, while the videos themselves are also circulating on the massive social media site.”

“Rep. Maxine Waters, for example, notably called for her supporters to harass Trump administration officials in public during a rally in 2018.’

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out, and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,’ Waters said.”

“Waters is far from alone.”

“New Jersey’s Booker [Senator Cory Booker] was also recorded in 2018 urging activists at the National Conference on Ending Homelessness to ‘get up in the face of some congresspeople.’”

‘“… that’s my call to action here. Please don’t just come here today and then go home,’ he said. ‘Go to the Hill today. Get up, and please get up in the face of some congresspeople.’”

Then in 2019…, Senator Jon Tester of Montana said on MSNBC, “I don’t think, even in states where Donald Trump won big, that it does you any good running away from Donald Trump. I think you need to go back and punch him in the face.”

“Then in 2020, House Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi said during a National Governors Association meeting that when a person is involved with politics, ‘you have to be ready to take a punch, and you have to be ready to throw a punch.’”

What is it with these democrats always wanting to punch somebody?

I mean, seriously?

“’Grabien’ [a multimedia marketplace company] founder Tom Elliott recently shared videos of Democrats making such comments on his Twitter account, and said that the violence seen at the Capitol last Wednesday would have occurred even if Trump had won in November, ‘Because Democrats have been endorsing violence as a political tactic throughout the entire Trump Administration.’”

We have also seen Senator Chuck Schumer get in on this action.

According to The Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal, “Democrats like to accuse President Trump of violating institutional democratic norms, and often he does with his rhetorical broadsides. But at least he’s never directly threatened the U.S. Supreme Court the way Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer did.”

“Speaking to a crowd on the Supreme Court steps, the leading Senate Democrat declared: ‘I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.’ He meant Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the newest Justices who were appointed by President Trump.”

“Mr. Schumer was speaking before abortion-rights activists as the Supreme Court considers whether to curtail the ability of abortion providers to sue on behalf of women seeking abortions—a doctrine known as third-party standing. Mr. Schumer, still addressing Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, added: ‘You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.’”

“The ‘whirlwind?’ ‘What hit you?’ We won’t go so far as to call that an incitement to violence, but it surely was a threat of political reprisal against the Justices if they don’t vote the way Mr. Schumer wants.”

The Wall Street Journal may not want to go that far, but I’ll call that an incitement of violence.

“The remarks [Schumer’s remarks] drew a rare and pointed public rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who said: ‘Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.’”

It sure seems like Chief Justice Roberts agrees with me!

Then we have our wonderful Vice-president elect, Kamala Harris.

Camille Caldera of USA TODAY reports, “Though largely peaceful, some of this summer’s protests have at times turned violent.”

Uh, I think you have backwards Ms. Caldera. You should have said, “Though largely violent, some of this summer’s protests have at times been peaceful.”

Regardless…, “A clip of Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris on an episode of ‘The Late Show with Stephen Colbert’ in June has resurfaced online.”

“Its title on YouTube claims: ‘Kamala Harris wants the riots to continue and not let up, not now not even after the election.’”

“The exchange between Harris and Colbert — which took place on June 17, a few weeks after George Floyd was killed by police in Minneapolis — referred to protests, not riots. The word ‘riot’ is not even mentioned in the 30-second exchange.”

That would be consistent with the democrats’ denial, at the time, that any riots were even occurring.

‘“I know there are protests still happening in major cities across the United States. I’m just not seeing the reporting on it that I had for the first few weeks,’ Colbert said.”

‘“That’s right,’ Harris replied. ‘But they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop, and this is a movement, I’m telling you.’”

‘“They’re not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they’re not gonna stop,’ she added. ‘They’re not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after Election Day.’”

‘“Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they’re not going to let up — and they should not. And we should not,’ she concluded.”

So, I get the impression you feel “they’re not gonna stop,” Kamala.

Saying they (the rioters, looters, arsonists, vandals, and those committing assaults and murder) “should not stop” is encouraging and inciting continued violence, is it not?

Again…, it sure sounds like it to me.

Now last, but certainly not least, we have the illegitimate President-elect himself, Joe Biden.

According to Veronica Stracqualursi, for CNN, ‘“They asked me would I like to debate this gentleman, and I said no. I said, if we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him,’ said Biden, getting laughter and applause from the crowd at the University of Miami.”

“Biden said Tuesday, ‘I’ve been in a lot of locker rooms my whole life. I’m a pretty damn good athlete.’”

Thanks for that inciteful assessment of yourself, Joe!

You just might be a better “athlete” that you are a politician!

In fact, I’m sure you are!

Anyway…

So, as we watch the democrats proceed with their hypocritical impeachment party, today, just remember who’s guilty of inciting who.

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 13, 2021 0

Liberals are the new Nazis! “Sieg Heil,” ABC News!!!

There were Nazis, then neo-Nazis, and now we have “democrat Nazism.”

You heard that term here first!

In the words of Ricky Bobby, from the movie “Talladega Nights:”

“That there is trademarked, not to be used without expressed written permission of Ricky Bobby, Inc.”

In this case, MrEricksonRules, LLC.

According to David Rutz of Fox News, “ABC News calls for ‘cleansing the movement’ of Trump supporters following the Capitol riots.”

“ABC News stealth-edited the piece, and changed it to ‘cleaning up.’”

“An ABC News article calling for the ‘cleansing’ of the movement of President Trump’s supporters was stealth-edited after critics questioned the charged word.”

‘“Even aside from impeachment and 25th Amendment talk, Trump will be an ex-president in 13 days,’ ABC’s Rick Klein and MaryAlice Parks wrote for ‘The Note’ on Thursday. ‘The fact is that getting rid of Trump is the easy part. Cleansing the “movement” he commands, or getting rid of what he represents to so many Americans, is going to be something else.’”

“It now reads, ‘Cleaning up the movement he commands, or getting rid of what he represents to so many Americans, is going to be something else.’”

“Klein also shared the original phrase on Twitter before deleting it.”

“The term ‘cleansing’ drew criticism on the right, which viewed it as a violent term in a week where bipartisan outrage has erupted over the mob mayhem at the U.S. Capitol this week.”

‘“You may not like it, but it’s perfectly within Klein’s right to say everything he said,’ the Media Research Center’s Nick Kangadis wrote. ‘He can celebrate that Trump is leaving office all he wants. But it is the height of hypocrisy for those in the media to condemn others for violent acts that are dwarfed in comparison to the consistent violence of the far-left — one act doesn’t justify the other — and then go out and call for something like a ‘cleansing’ of people and think there’s nothing wrong with a statement like that.’”

Without a doubt, the capitol protest will be used as a vehicle to further attack Trump supporters and patriots in general.

Perhaps Klein and Parks would care to let us in on what their vision of “cleansing” might include?

The “playbooks” for “cleansing” are out there, and scattered throughout human history…, and they’re all ugly and evil.

“Klein leads the network’s [ABC’s] political coverage and provides analysis across its platforms.”

“ABC,’ of course, stands for American Broadcasting Company.

I propose a better choice would be DNBC!

I’ll let you figure that out.

And, finally…, when are many other people going to wake up and start figuring this out as well?

Do African Americans think they’re going to be included in this grand scheme?

Do Hispanic Americans think they’re going to be included in this grand scheme?

Does any other group, other than white liberal elites, think they’re going to be included in this grand scheme?

I hate to break it to you, but you won’t be.

These other groups are just being used as a means to an end, and when their usefulness has reached an end, they’ll need to be “cleansed” or discarded too.

Mark my words.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 8, 2021 0

Can’t we all just get along now?

Now that President Trump is in the process of being cheated out of his re-election?

Nancy Pelosi was re-elected as the Speaker of The House of Representatives, for the 117^th Congress, on January 3^rd.

During her speech to the new Congress, we heard a masked Pelosi, even though there was no one within ten feet of her, declare that this is now “a time to heal.”

Excuse me…, but I can think of like 74 million Trump voters off the top of my head who would disagree with you, Nancy!

There is no “healing” anymore after the way you and your democrat friends shamefully treated our president…, President Trump, during his four years in office…, and then stole the 2020 election.

No…, there is no “getting along” or “healing anymore.

This has now become a war to save America.

You said that “prayers are needed now.”

Who or what do you and your ilk pray to, Nancy?

You don’t really expect us to believe that God endorses your Godless beliefs and behavior, do you…, or that you ask Him for help with your depraved agenda?

I mean, c’mon, really?

You’ve gotta give us some credit!

Either you are a complete manipulative, hypocritical, phony, or you are just really screwed up.

My vote is you’re a complete manipulative, hypocritical, phony.

You then went on to call for “justice.”

“Economic justice,”

“Health justice,”

“Racial justice,”

And “environmental and climate justice.”

I think you think “justice” means advancing the liberal, socialist, and globalist agenda in these areas.

The “justice” we really need is:

Justice for unborn babies in the womb,

Election justice,

Uncensored freedom of speech,

Justice in media coverage,

And most ironically, justice from the Department of Justice and the FBI.

You then finished by saying, “no one in America should be left out or left behind.”

If that statement wasn’t so sad it would be hilarious!

Have you actually stepped foot in your own district in San Francisco, California?

Granted, you’d have to be careful so as to not step in a pile of human excrement, which is a major problem in your idyllic city!

But if you were able to visit your district without getting your shoes dirty, you would see thousands and thousands of homeless people who have been “left out or left behind.”

Doesn’t charity begin at home?

You can’t even take care of your own little district, but you want to lecture the rest of us regarding what we should strive for as a country?

These are just move disingenuous empty words from another corrupt politician.

Oh…, that reminds me…, we also need some political justice!

I won’t be holding my breath waiting for that either, however.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 5, 2021 4

Are you kidding me, San Francisco?!

This is a joke, right?

Apparently not.

According to the KUSI Newsroom (a local San Diego TV station), “San Francisco may remove President Abraham Lincoln’s name from a high school because some in the district say Abraham Lincoln did not demonstrate that “black lives mattered to him.”

Wait, what?!

“If you did not know, the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, abolished slavery.”

I think we all know that, unless you went to school in California, apparently.

“Lincoln was also assassinated for it.”

Again, I think we all know that, unless you went to school in California, apparently.

Are these people in San Francisco all on drugs, or are they all just idiots?

The answer, I believe, is “yes.”

“The San Francisco Chronicle reported, ‘Lincoln is one of dozens of historical figures who the city school district’s renaming committee argued led lives so rife with racism, oppression or abuse that their names should not grace its buildings.’”

“Their names should not grace their buildings?!”

I would vote to have Abraham Lincoln’s name removed because he doesn’t deserve to be associated with this embarrassment of a city!

“The SFUSD [San Francisco Unified School District] School Names Advisory Committee’s discussion on the name was made public on YouTube.”

Jill Tucker, of the San Francisco Chronicle, reports that, “Abraham Lincoln, once a hero, is now a bad guy in some S.F. education circles.”

“Abraham Lincoln, an iconic American hero, could soon be an outcast in San Francisco, his legacy called into question and his name ripped off a high school.”

“Lincoln is one of dozens of historical figures who, according to a school district renaming committee, lived a life so stained with racism, oppression or human rights violations, they do not deserve to have their name on a school building.”

“The debate reflects a nation in turmoil, a reckoning with a racist past that lingers today, toppling Confederate statues from town squares and eliminating a large number of Robert E. Lee street signs.”

Confederate statues and Robert E. Lee street signs are one thing…, and President Abraham Lincoln is a complete other thing.

‘“Uprooting the problematic names and symbols that currently clutter buildings, streets, throughout the city is a worthy endeavor,’ said Jeremiah Jeffries, chairman of the renaming committee and a first-grade teacher in San Francisco. ‘Only good can come from the public being reflective and intentional about the power of our words, names and rhetoric within our public institutions.’”

Again, apparently not.

The only “problematic” name I see here is “Jeremiah Jeffries.”

He should be dismissed and allowed to find work teaching in a fascist country elsewhere.

“But history is not always clear. People are complicated. Heroism and bravery can be obscured by beliefs and behaviors deemed abhorrent when viewed through a modern lens.”

Is “modern” a synonym for “neo-fascist” now?

“Was Lincoln one of the greatest presidents of all time who ended the country’s great shame or a whitewashed historic character with a questionable record related to Native Americans not worthy of memorials, school names and street signs?”

Let’s please recall that the Native Americans were a conquered people in America. Keeping that in mind, I feel they have been given ample consideration they would not have received from any other country.

“When the committee released the 44 school sites to be renamed, many made sense. Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe were slave owners, and Vasco Nunez Balboa was a murderous conquistador.”

I really don’t care about Balboa one way or the other…, San Francisco is the place that chose to name a school after him for some reason, but Jefferson and Monroe? Two of the founding fathers of our nation? And, yes, they may have owned slaves back then, but it was legal then, and over 200 years ago.

“But perhaps the most controversial name on the list was Lincoln. Honest Abe. The Great Emancipator.”

I would say having George Washington on that list is just as disgraceful, if not more so.

“His inclusion exemplifies the struggle in San Francisco and across the country to balance the good and the bad, in this case, the hero and the 19th century man with many faults.”

Please don’t try and pull the rest of the country into your liberal insanity.

And please, give me names of some people who don’t have any faults.

I’ll wait.

‘“I have so many reactions in the sense of looking at his entire record and the fact of what (Lincoln) did for Africans and slavery and the Emancipation Proclamation,’ said Sherry Black, who worked for more than 40 years in Native American economic and community development. ‘Considering the time period, it’s so difficult to understand how things were at the time. How do you make these decisions?’”

Pulling your head out of your backside would be a good start, Sherry.

“To many, Abraham Lincoln was one of the country’s greatest presidents, the Great Emancipator, a beloved historic figure as well as political mentor to his successors, including Barack Obama, who used the Lincoln Bible for his inauguration.”

Uh…, yeah.

I knew Obama was a closet racist! He’s half white you know!

“Yet the renaming of Lincoln High School was a slam dunk for the committee, which didn’t even discuss it, according to video of the meetings.”

A “slam dunk,” and they “didn’t even discuss it?!”

Okay…, that’s it! I’m officially requesting that California be thrown out of the union of states.

California should not be allowed to fly the American flag, and its citizens should not be considered “Americans.”

I mean, either you want to be a part of America or you don’t…, and California obviously doesn’t…, so, just get out then.

“The members of the committee, appointed by the school board, deemed whether a person’s actions or beliefs met the criteria for renaming, and moved on. The committee’s spreadsheet with notes on their research listed the federal treatment of Native Americans during his administration as the reason.”

Let’s take a look at this disgrace of a school board!

Mark Sanchez, School Board President

Gabriela Lopez, School Board VP

Alison Collins, Commissioner

Stevon Cook, Commissioner

Jenny Lam, Commissioner

Faauuga Moliga, Commissioner

Rachael Norton, Commissioner

These people were all elected by the city of San Francisco.

“The discussion for Lincoln centered around his treatment of First Nation peoples, because that was offered first,’ Jeffries said. ‘Once he met criteria in that way, we did not belabor the point.’”

Again, let’s please recall that the Native Americans were a conquered people in America. Keeping that in mind, I feel they have been given more than ample consideration that they would not have received from any other country.

“Jeffries, however, said the narrative of Lincoln’s legacy is false.”

Jeremiah Jeffries…, judge, jury and executioner.

He sure wields a lot of power for someone who teaches 6 year olds.

“Regardless of the pop culture myths of Lincoln and his motivations, the Civil War was not fought over slavery or the liberation of Black people, he said.”

Without President Lincoln, Jeffries would be in no position to even utter his “stupidness” at this point.

Just sayin’.

“The San Francisco School Names Advisory Committee used the following criteria to identify school names to be changed:

Anyone directly involved in the colonization of people

Slave owners or participants in enslavement

Perpetrators of genocide or slavery

Those who exploit workers/people

Those who directly oppressed or abused women, children, queer or transgender people [Does this include Joe Biden?]

Those connected to any human rights or environmental abuses

Those who are known racists and/or white supremacists and/or espoused racist beliefs.” [This would historically include most democrat politicians.]

“San Francisco’s district is considering changing the name of schools honoring the following people [this is really only about half of the school names being considered]:

Abraham Lincoln High School, U.S. president

George Washington High School, first U.S. president

Herbert Hoover Middle School, U.S. president

Roosevelt Middle School, Theodore or F.D., both U.S. presidents

Paul Revere K-8, American Revolution patriot

Alamo Elementary, the site of Texas Revolution battle

Garfield Elementary, James Garfield, U.S. president

Jefferson Elementary, Thomas Jefferson, U.S. president

Francis Scott Key Elementary, composer of ‘Star Spangled Banner’

Monroe Elementary, James Monroe, U.S. president

An unwritten criteria for this ignorant list, and the most important factor, apparently, is being a white male.

Just sayin’.

“For the renaming committee, [otherwise known as the “woke” Nazi propaganda ministry], one decision that met the criteria was enough.”

‘“We asked ourselves, did the name under consideration meet one or more of our criteria? If that name met criteria, they were put on the list,’ Jeffries said.”

“At the same time, labor leader Cesar Chavez didn’t make the list {He was not white.], despite his feelings toward undocumented immigrants, who he called ‘wetbacks’ and other derogatory names. He encouraged his supporters to report them to the authorities for deportation.”

And he was against illegal immigrants too!!!

How did he possibly survive their hit list?!

I’m telling you…, the white male criteria is the overriding factor.

“Jeffries said no one on the committee offered evidence that Chavez met the criteria. He did not say whether anyone on the committee looked for any.”

Alrighty then!

“The committee is expected to formally recommend renaming the 44 school sites in January, which will also include an alternative name chosen by Jeffries and the other members.”

“School communities have an opportunity to suggest a new name this month.”

Ooooh, I can’t wait to see what names they come up with!

Fidel Castro?

Karl Marx?

Vladimir Lenin?

Joseph Stalin?

Mao Zedong?

Don’t laugh…, I’m serious!

I’m sure Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, and Eric Swalwell are high on their list of replacement names.

Oh, wait…, Schiff and Swalwell are white…, we need to take them off the list!

“The school board is expected to vote on the recommendations early next year.”

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 29, 2020 0

Have you seen this tree?

Have you seen this missing Christmas tree, or another one that looks just like it?

According to Julia Musto of Fox News, “GOP lawmakers’ second Christmas tree vanishes from Wisconsin Capitol!”

“Vanishes?!”

What?!

Did someone come down the capitol’s chimney in the middle of the night?

Maybe we should change the capitol of Wisconsin’s name from Madison to Whoville!

“Two Wisconsin Republican lawmakers who put up an artificial Christmas tree in the state’s Capitol Rotunda on Tuesday, just hours after a first tree was removed, found it had vanished on Wednesday morning.”

“The earlier attempt had been thwarted by Democratic Governor Tony [‘The Grinch’] Evers, who said no permit had been provided for the display and that the coronavirus pandemic had closed the building to the public.”

Ahhh, the dreaded government permit.

You’re a mean one, Mr. Evers!

“Reps. Paul Tittl and Shae Sortwell had requested to put up a ‘historical display’ on the rotunda’s ground floor, but their motion was swiftly denied by Evers.”

“The ‘great and powerful’ Evers denies your request!”

“An appeal was also shot down on Thursday by Capitol Police Chief [Wisconsin ‘SS’ Police Chief] David Erwin, who said that the Department of Administration did not have the authority to approve displays on the ground floor of the Capitol.”

In this Dec. 7, 2020 file photo, an artificial Christmas tree that two Republican lawmakers set up stands in the Wisconsin Capitol rotunda in Madison, Wis. The tree was removed Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2020, because the lawmakers did not have a permit.”

“Traditionally, in a year without a pandemic, the Capitol’s tree draws visitors from around the state during the holiday season.”

Wow, the pandemic works as an excuse for everything!

The democrats must be so proud of themselves for coming up with the virus strategy, along with the help from the Chinese, of course.

“Evers has insisted on referring to that tree as a ‘holiday tree,’ citing inclusivity.”

“Inclusivity?”

What about when protesters of former Governor Scott Walker invaded the capitol building there, hung obnoxious posters and banners everywhere, and refused to leave?

That didn’t threaten inclusivity?

I know I definitely felt excluded.

Although, we should all know by now that only non-democrats are required by the democrats to be “inclusive.”

Democrats are allowed to censor, lie, exclude, and deceive at their leisure.

“In a letter explaining why their first [Christmas tree] had been removed, the Department of Administration’s Assistant Deputy Secretary Olivia Hwang suggested that the lawmakers reach out to Rep. Amy Loudenbeck. Loudenbeck, also a Republican, had received a permit to erect an artificial Christmas tree on the first floor.”

Ahhh, Olivia Hwang…, such a good little Nazi in training…, fresh out of indoctrination training at the University of Wisconsin there.

“When Tittl and Sortwell found out that their festive addition would be removed from the Capitol’s ground floor, they acted quickly — applying for a permit with both Loudenbeck and the administration.”

“Then, they set up a second tree on Facebook Live.”

“The lawmakers called the act a peaceful protest of Evers’ administration, pointing to their First Amendment rights.”

“The artificial tree, they argued, does not cost anything.”

Apparently, they think republicans have the right to peacefully protest like rioters, arsonists, vandals, and looters do!

Silly republicans!

“The ornaments on the fake evergreen were sent in from all over the country and Tittl plans to donate extra ornaments to nursing homes in his district.”

‘“It doesn’t hurt anything,’ he said in an interview with The Associated Press. ‘It’s not using any resources. It doesn’t have to be watered. Kids from all over the country have sent us ornaments to put on the tree.’”

“The next morning, though, the second tree was gone.”

‘“Last night they took our tree down again, with ornaments and all,’ Tittle posted to his Facebook page.”

That sounds like a familiar storyline!

Yes, you truly are a mean one, Mr. [Grinch] Evers!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 17, 2020 1

The “Fredo” awards!

Yes, welcome ladies and gentlemen to the first annual “Fredo” Awards!

We all know how much liberal elitists like giving each other awards and receiving awards, so I thought I would hand out some awards of my own that these liberal losers have actually earned.

If you’re not familiar with the term, what exactly does being a “Fredo” refer to?

According to the Urban Dictionary website, “In proper application referring to someone as a ‘Fredo’ means they are just a dumb [a$$] loser like ‘The Godfather’ movie character,” who was the weak and naïve son and brother.

There you have it!

So, without any further adieu…, on to the awards!

First off, the Honorary “Fredo” Awards.

Our first Honorary “Fredo” Awards go to the award’s namesakes, New York Governor Andrew “Fredo Sr.” Cuomo, and his brother, host of the CNN show, “Cuomo Prime Time,” Chris “Fredo Jr.” Cuomo.

Without these two liberal turds, the “Fredo” awards would not have been possible.

Our next award, and our first category award, goes to The Worst Liberal Politician in a Leading Role.

This was an extremely tough category to award. There were so many worthy recipients. But, in the end, one liberal politician did manage to stand out above the rest…, and that liberal politician is Congresswoman and Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi!

Her incessant lying and obnoxious partisan idiocy seemingly has no limits.

The next award goes to The Worst Liberal Politician in a Supporting Role.

Again, there were so many scumbags worthy of consideration here. But, the worst liberal, and sleaziest democrat, in a Supporting Role has to go to Congressman Adam Schiff.

Like his fearless leader, Nancy Pelosi, Schiff’s continual ability to lie without any apparent conscious, and his ability to shamelessly drive fictitious narratives are unequalled.

Our next award goes to The Worst Costume Design for a Liberal Politician.

The winner of this award really didn’t have any serious challengers.

The winner of the worst costume design for a liberal politician goes to Congresswoman Frederica Smith Wilson of Florida!

Our next award goes to The Worst Adapted Testimony for a Liberal Politician.

The winner of this award becomes our first two-time winner. He wins his second award based on his adaptation of President Trump’s call with Volodymyr Zelensky, the then-newly elected Ukrainian leader. His “adaptation” was later debunked, however, when it was learned there was an actual transcription of the call. Ooops!

So, the winner of the worst adapted testimony by a liberal politician goes to California Congressman, Adam Schiff!

Our next award is the Worst Original Story (hoax) by a liberal politician.

The worst original story (hoax) by a liberal politician has to refer to the whole “Russia collusion” hoax. This hoax unabashedly proclaimed that President Trump was an actual Russian spy and a puppet for Russian President, Vladimir Putin. We heard nightly, for over two years how everyone had proof of this…, but in the end, there was no proof to be found, and no retractions or apologies either.

There were really too many democrats involved in this hoax to award individual awards. These included a President, a Vice President, various Cabinet secretaries, various executive branch officers, members of the DOJ and the FBI, and, of course, the co-conspiratorial mainstream media, just to get the party started.

Accepting this award on behalf of all the treasonous democrat vermin involved in this hoax (and attempted coup), is Rachel Maddow, the clueless MSNBC commentator who willfully and joyfully perpetrated this big lie on a nightly basis.

The next award is for the Worst Speech and Press Briefing Editing.

During the course of the 2020 presidential election campaign, it became common knowledge that Joe Biden utilized a teleprompter for almost everything he said and, even then, he usually managed to stick his foot in his mouth. That, coupled with the cherry picking of “friendly” questions, and the outright refusal to even answer other questions, earned these two individuals their awards.

This award for Worst Speech and Press Briefing Editing goes to Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, Biden’s Campaign Manager, and Joe Biden himself.

The next award is for The Worst News Editing, by a liberal organization, in a supporting role.

We are awarding multiple awards in this category.

Those organizations receiving awards for their anti-American censorship and propaganda by omission are: CNN, MSNBC, Facebook, Twitter and Google.

Congratulations for lowering our news and social media to levels normally seen in Communist China, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba.

Our next award is for The Most Clueless Liberal in a supporting role.

Again, there was no shortage of liberals in consideration here, but one individual definitely stood out above the crowd!

This clueless liberal torpedoed thousands of good paying Amazon jobs in her city, wants our country to abandon all civilized progress in the name of climate change, and is campaigning to turn our country into a socialist nightmare.

Taking all of this into consideration, the award for The Most Clueless Liberal in a supporting role can only go to Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

As you can see, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is so clueless, she is happy about winning this award!

Our next award is for The Biggest Liberal Meathead in a supporting Role.

One “Fredo” nominee clearly stood out for this award. It was actually created especially for him!

The award for The Biggest Liberal Meathead in a supporting Role goes to Californian Congressman Eric Swalwell!

A member of the “Russian collusion hoax club,” Swalwell, we have now learned, carried on about Russian influences in our government, all while he was cavorting around with his own little China doll spy, Christine Fang! You just can’t make this stuff up. I’m sure it was a big surprise to his wife as well. Ouch!

Swalwell even entered the race for president. His campaign lasted about ten minutes. I’m sure Fang encouraged Swalwell and was his driving force!

I can just hear her now…, “Oh, Eric, I love you…, the people love you…, they need a big strong leader like you, Eric…, you must run for president…, you owe it to the American people…, they need you!”

A truer “meathead” you just couldn’t find!

And finally, the “Fredos” inaugural Lifetime Achievement award goes to Seth Myers, host of “Late Night with Seth Myers.”

Seth Myers chose to ruin his show and dedicate at least 10 minutes a night to bashing presidential candidate Donald Trump, and then he beat Hillary Clinton anyway!

We have all heard of the term “influencer.” Seth Myers may now best be known as an “anti-influencer,” since all of his efforts obviously had no effect on the election, and quite possibly the opposite of his desired effect!

Then, having learned nothing from his “influencer” failure, he continued to bash President Trump for another four years on a nightly basis!

President Trump then won again, only to have the election stolen from him.

Well, that wraps-up our award ceremony.

I hope you enjoyed the First Annual “Fredo” Awards!

I know I enjoyed bringing them to you.

I hope to see you next year for the presentations of the Second Annual “Fredo” Awards!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 16, 2020 0

The “fix” was obviously in.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court tossed out President Trump’s election lawsuit on everything BUT the merits of the case.

According to the Associated Press, “The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s lawsuit attempting to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the battleground state, ending [President] Trump’s legal challenges in state court about an hour before the Electoral College was to meet to cast the state’s 10 votes for Biden.”

“The President sought to have more than 221,000 ballots disqualified in Dane and Milwaukee counties, the state’s two most heavily Democratic [and most heavily populated] counties. In a 4-3 ruling, Justice Brian Hagedorn, a conservative writing for the majority, said the Trump campaign was ‘not entitled to the relief it seeks.’”

Okay…, first of all…, why is it important to note that Justice Hagedorn is supposedly a “conservative?” Is that supposed to lend some credence to his opinion?

I guess so.

“Hagedorn used a sports analogy when ruling against Trump, saying he waited too long to raise his complaints.”

‘“Our laws allow the challenge flag to be thrown regarding various aspects of election administration,’ Hagedorn wrote.”

He seems to assume everyone reading his ruling is familiar with American football, and the National Football League.

Actually, I think that is quite culturalist and even misogynistic.

But that’s okay, as long as it’s a ruling against President Trump and conservatives.

‘“The challenges raised by the [President’s] Campaign in this case, however, come long after the last play or even the last game; the Campaign is challenging the rulebook adopted before the season began.’”

As I have stated in earlier blogs, is it ever too late for justice to be served?

And you shouldn’t be looking at any “rulebook” adopted by anyone else other that the state’s legislature, which is solely given the rights to create the laws governing a state’s elections by The United States Constitution.

“[President] Trump wanted to disqualify absentee ballots cast early and in-person, saying there wasn’t a proper written request made for the ballots; absentee ballots cast by people who claimed ‘indefinitely confined’ status; absentee ballots collected by poll workers at Madison parks; and absentee ballots where clerks filled in missing information on ballot envelopes.”

Please note that there is nothing in Wisconsin’s election laws, established by the legislature, allowing for any of this.

“The court ruled that [President] Trump’s challenge to voters who were indefinitely confined was without merit and that the other claims came too late.”

“Liberal justices Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky, who sided with Hagedorn, wrote separately to emphasize that there was no evidence of fraud in Wisconsin’s election.”

‘“Wisconsin voters complied with the election rulebook,’ Dallet and Karofksy said. ‘No penalties were committed and the final score was the result of a free and fair election.’”

Even though these two wrote separately from Hagedorn, they sure seem to be writing from the same “playbook,” if you want to use football terminology.

“Karofsky blasted [President] Trump’s case during Saturday’s hearing, saying it ‘smacks of racism’ and was ‘un-American.’ Conservative justices voiced some concerns about how certain ballots were cast, while also questioning whether they could or should disqualify votes only in two counties.”

“Smacks of racism?!”

“Un-American?!

Please, Justice Karofsky, we don’t need an obviously biased and disingenuous lecture from you on top of your misguided and partisan decision regarding this case.

Karofsky is the larger pictured justice on the right.

“Biden [supposedly] won Wisconsin by about 20,600 votes, a margin of 0.6% that withstood a Trump-requested recount in Milwaukee and Dane counties, the two with the most Democratic votes. Trump did not challenge any ballots cast in the counties he won.”

Oh really?!

That’s odd.

Why would he challenge the counties he won?

And a recount of the same illegal ballots is, of course, just going to produce the same results.

Yes, folks, the “fix” was obviously in.

It’s a real shame that many of these state supreme courts are now making their judgements based on politics rather than the law.

In many cases, our judicial branch of government has “sold its soul” to the politically corrupt neo-fascist manipulators in our country.

“Justice” has now become what some liberal perceives it to be, or wants it to be, and not what it actually should be.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 15, 2020 0

UPDATE#4: Remember the Alamo! (Friday, 12/11/20).

Well, it’s in the Supreme Court’s hands now.

The only question left is: Is The Supreme Court going to sit back and allow the democrats to steal this election or not?

According to Tyler Olson and Bill Mears of Fox News, “Texas on Friday morning filed a ‘reply brief’ with the Supreme Court as it asks the tribunal to hear its lawsuit that aims to essentially nullify the presidential elections in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin — putting the ball in the justices’ court to issue an order in the case.”

“The ‘briefing stage’ of Supreme Court litigation consists of the first party, in this instance, Texas, asking the court to hear the case. Then opposition briefs are filed by those on the other side of the case. Then the first party is allowed to file a ‘reply brief,’ which Texas did Friday morning.”

‘“Defendant States do not seriously address grave issues that Texas raises, choosing to hide behind other court venues and decisions in which Texas could not participate and to mischaracterize both the relief that Texas seeks and the justification for that relief,’ the Texas brief says of the opposition briefs filed by Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia Thursday.”

“Texas continues: ‘An injunction should be issued because Defendant States have not—and cannot—defend their actions.’”

“The justices now could simply issue an order saying that they refuse to hear the case. They could also agree to hear the case and promptly dismiss it or rule in favor of Texas. The justices could also request oral arguments before ruling.”

“The crux of the Texas case is the argument that the four states it is suing — all four of which swung for President-elect Joe Biden — unconstitutionally changed their election statutes in their judiciaries or executive branches, when only the legislature is allowed to make election law. The reply brief Friday says that the four states failed to adequately dispute their point that this makes their entire elections invalid.”

‘“Defendant States do not credibly dispute either that they changed election statutes via non-legislative means or that the Electors Clause preempts such changes,’ the Texas brief says. ‘Accordingly, Texas is likely to prevail on the merits.’”

“Texas’ Friday brief says that it not asking the Supreme Court to decide or overturn the results of the presidential election, but right a constitutional wrong.”

‘“Texas does not ask this Court to reelect President Trump, and Texas does not seek to disenfranchise the majority of Defendant States’ voters,’ Texas’ brief says.”

“It continues: ‘Texas asks this Court to recognize the obvious fact that Defendant States’ maladministration of the 2020 election makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes. The Court’s role is to strike unconstitutional action and remand to the actors that the Constitution and Congress vest with authority for the next step.’”

How can the Supreme Court not act in this case?

‘“The timing is extremely late and the justices have been reluctant to resolve election disputes too close to an election, much less after a presidential election has been conducted and votes certified in the states at issue,’ [University of Richmond School of Law professor Carl] Tobias told Fox News.”

“Late?”

Is that all you’ve got?

“Late?”

“Late” regarding what?

Is it ever too late to request that justice be served?

They just finally completed counting votes not too long ago!

And it seems like they keep finding more ballots to count all the time!

“There is no specific time limit for the justices to issue an order in the case, though some action is likely to come before Monday [12/14/2020], which is when presidential electors across the country will assemble in their state capitals to cast their electoral votes for president.”

Again, it is my belief that, considering all of the possible ramifications, this decision by The Supreme Court will go down in history as the most important decision it has ever made.

We’ll now see if the five conservative judges on the Supreme Court have the courage to do the right thing. I already know how the liberal judges are going to vote.

I’ll continue to keep you posted.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 11, 2020 0

UPDATE#3: Remember the Alamo! (Friday, 12/11/20).

The “defendant states’” responses are in. Now it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if Texas’ lawsuit is even worth consideration.

Tyler Olson and Bill Mears of Fox News report that, “Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan filed briefs Thursday in response to the Texas case seeking to bar their presidential electors from voting.”

“In briefs submitted with the Supreme Court on Thursday, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin slammed the Texas lawsuit to prevent those four states from casting their electoral votes as a ‘meritless’ effort to ‘decimate the electorate of the United States.’”

Excuse me Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, but the Texas lawsuit is hardly “meritless.”

Taken from the filed Texas motion and supporting documentation:

“Expert analysis using a commonly accepted statistical test further raises serious questions as to the integrity of this election.”

“The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000^4). See Decl. of Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D. (“Cicchetti Decl.”) at ¶¶ 14-21, 30-31. See App. 4a-7a, 9a. 11.”

So, expert mathematical analysis is saying that Joe Biden winning the vote in these four states, given the circumstances, was basically impossible.

We have to listen to the “experts” after all, don’t we?

We have to follow the Science, don’t we?

Just sayin’.

“The response briefs were filed just ahead of a 3 p.m. deadline the Supreme Court previously gave the states to respond to the Texas suit.”

“It [the Texas lawsuit] aims to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction in disputes between states, bypassing lower federal courts, which have uniformly ruled against other election-related litigation by President Trump and his allies.”

Bypassing the lower federal courts, in this case, was key. The lower courts, in regards to this case, would most certainly dismiss it out of hand, either because the judge had a liberal bias, or the judge did not want to assume the responsibility for ruling in favor of Texas.

“The Texas suit gained the backing of 17 other states Wednesday when, led by Missouri, they filed a brief endorsing the Paxton’s case. Then on Thursday, Missouri and five other states filed another brief with the Supreme Court this time asking to be allowed to join Texas as litigants in the case.”

“But despite the widespread support from red-state attorneys general for Texas’ case, attorneys general Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin attacked the suit in their responses as ‘meritless’ and ‘nakedly political.’”

‘“Texas waited until now to seek an injunction to nullify Pennsylvania’s election results because all of the other political and litigation machinations of Petitioner’s preferred presidential candidate have failed,’ the Pennsylvania brief, led by Attorney General Josh Shaprio, states.”

So, what?

What does this, if even true, have to do with the merits of Texas’ lawsuit?

‘“The Trump campaign began with a series of meritless litigations. When that failed, it turned to state legislatures to overturn the clear election results,’ Pennsylvania continued. ‘Upon that failure, Texas now turns to this Court to overturn the election results of more than 10% of the country. Texas literally seeks to decimate the electorate of the United States.’”

Nooo…, Texas now turns to the Court to stop the fraudulent election results from 10% of the country decimating the rights of the other 90% of the country!

‘“Texas asserts that this Court’s intervention is necessary to ensure faith in the election. But it is hard to imagine what could possibly undermine faith in democracy more than this Court permitting one state to enlist the Court in its attempt to overturn the election results in other states,’ the Wisconsin brief says. ‘Merely hearing this case—regardless of the outcome—would generate confusion, lend legitimacy to claims judges across the country have found meritless, and amplify the uncertainty and distrust these false claims have generated.’”

“Michigan, led by Attorney General Dana Nessell, also laid out a variety of factors that it believes weigh heavily against the Texas case.”

‘“The base of Texas’s claims rests on an assertion that Michigan has violated its own election laws. Not true,’ the Michigan brief says.”

Now there you go lying again, Ms. Nessell.

I know…, it just comes with the job, and with being a democrat.

“The crux of the arguments from Texas and the states that support it is that the Constitution gives only state legislatures the power to set rules regarding presidential elections. Therefore, when the executive and judicial branches in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia changed how their elections would work this year in light of the coronavirus pandemic, their elections became invalid.”

‘“When non-legislative actors in other States encroach on the authority of the ‘Legislature thereof’ in that State to administer a Presidential election, they threaten the liberty, not just of their own citizens, but of every citizen of the United States who casts a lawful ballot in that election—including the citizens of amici States,’ the Wednesday brief filed by Missouri and 16 other states says.”

Bingo!

Now, what’s so hard to understand about that, and how can that thinking even be argued with?

Regardless, the democrats are arguing against it.

“But most legal experts agree that for many procedural reasons the Texas case is almost certain to fail, and that their merits argument is fatally flawed too.”

‘“To begin with, the imagined “rule” is universally ignored since states have in fact allowed their governors, judiciaries, or both to make rulings and determinations affecting the manner in which presidential elections are held and electors thus chosen,’ Walter Olson of the libertarian Cato Institute told Fox News.”

This “imagined rule” you refer to, Mr. Olsen, is a little thing called The Constitution of the United States!

And whether or not states have chosen to ignore The Constitution in the past, has no bearing on whether or not their current election processes are legal or not.

It’s really a childish excuse.

“We’ve established illegal voting processes before, so…”

“Harvard law professor [Okay…, I can already see where this is going!] and former Supreme Court clerk to late Justice Antonin Scalia, Lawrence Lessig, meanwhile, said that the motivations for the Texas case are purely political.”

See, I told you!

‘“This is political posturing through litigation. Not one of those attorneys general believes they are entitled to win,’ he told Fox News. ‘As lawyers, that should stop them from signing onto such an action. But they are acting as politicians, not lawyers here — to the detriment of the rule of law.’”

I really can’t believe you were able to get that statement out, Mr. Lessig, without choking on your own words!

People “acting as politicians,” and the “detriment of the rule of law?!”

Seriously?

Along with all of the additional states supporting the Texas lawsuit, The President has signed on in support of it, as have 106 House members who filed a brief with the Supreme Court as well.

It is my belief that, considering all of the possible ramifications, this decision by The Supreme Court will go down in history as the most important decision it has ever made.

I’ll continue to keep you posted.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 11, 2020 0

Joe Biden’s election miracle.

Even Smokey Robinson never saw a miracle like this one!

My apologies to all of the millennials out there for that reference.

According to Benny Johnson on “The Benny Report,” “It’s a magical time of year. It’s a season of wonder and amazement! When millions of American go to bed, and while we are all sleeping, something magical happens, and we wake up to a miracle! Obviously, we’re not talking about Christmas here, we’re talking about Joe Biden’s 2020 election night.”

Yes, that was an amazing night!

I remember going to sleep with President Trump ahead by tens of thousands of votes, and even hundreds of thousands of votes in some cases, then waking to find Joe Biden had somehow, in the early hours of Wednesday, November 4^th, closed the gap or taken the lead in a number of these swing states.

But before we can truly appreciate Joe Biden’s “election miracle,” we need to point out a few 2020 election facts and some historical presidential election facts.

In 2020, President Trump expanded his voter base by 11 million votes.

The votes President Trump received from African-Americans rose by 50%!

And the votes President Trump received from Hispanic Americans rose by 35%!

And yet, he supposedly lost.

Joe Biden supposedly received 80 million votes. The most, by far, of any presidential candidate in history.

In fact, that’s 11 million more votes than Barack Obama received at the height of his popularity.

Hmmm.

Despite beating Obama’s turnout in 2008, Biden won a record low number of counties.

Hmmm, again.

Only 17% of American counties, a record low of 527 counties (out of 3,143), were won by Joe Biden.

Former President Obama won 873 counties in 2008.

Yet, Joe Biden supposedly won.

President Trump won 18 of the 19 “bellwether” counties that have historically predicted the presidential election winner.

Yet, Joe Biden supposedly won.

Joe Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton virtually everywhere, except in a few key swing state counties…, those counties encompassing the metro areas of Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta, and Philadelphia.

Hmmm, again, again.

Additionally, Joe Biden somehow managed to win despite democrat losses nationwide.

Twenty-seven seats in Congress were regarded as toss-ups.

Republicans have not lost a single one of those “toss-up” elections.

That means that voters went out and voted for their local republican candidates, but voted against the most popular republican president in history?

That’s odd.

But wait, there’s more.

President Trump received over 90% of the republican primary vote. Historically, no incumbent who has received over 75% of their party’s total primary vote has ever lost re-election.

A record 18 million voters came out for President Trump in the 2020 primaries. That’s more than any incumbent in history.

The previous record was held by Bill Clinton who only had 9 million.

That’s impressive.

And Joe Biden didn’t even bother to campaign against President Trump.

Benny Johnson adds that, “Trump had an army [of supporters], and Joe Biden had kindergarten circles!”

Now, all of this would have to be classified as circumstantial evidence, but taken as a whole, it is quite substantial.

At the very least, all of this circumstantial evidence has to make you wonder, if not seriously question the 2020 presidential election “results.”

According to the “Britannica” website, “The notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is, of course, false. Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, although it must be adequate to meet established standards of proof.”

And, well, there you have it.

It is my opinion that the 2020 presidential election should definitely be put into question, and at least be investigate thoroughly, so as to establish the integrity of the election.