“Tell ‘em what they’ve won Johnny!”

“All of the homeless people in Oakland, California have won an all-expenses paid cruise ship adventure, Pat!”

Well…, not exactly all of the homeless population of Oakland.

According to Travis Fedschun of Fox News, “The City of Oakland considers obtaining a cruise ship to house the homeless!”

“This is not exactly ‘The Love Boat,’ but it could help make a dent in one California city’s homeless crisis.”

acruise 1

Unless you’re over 40 years old, you may not get the reference to “The Love Boat.”

For those of you who aren’t familiar with “The Love Boat,” “The Love Boat” was a TV series set on a luxury passenger cruise ship called the Pacific Princess.  The show aired on ABC from 1977 to 1987.  The series revolved around the ship’s captain, Captain Stubing (played by Gavin MacLeod), and a handful of its crew: Julie, Doc, Gopher and Isaac, along with several passengers, played by various guest star actors each episode, having romantic and humorous adventures.

The Love Boat - 1977-1986

Anyway…

“During a city council meeting on Tuesday, Oakland City Council President Rebecca Kaplan broached the idea of using a cruise ship to house up to 1,000 homeless people, suggesting a ship be brought to the Port of Oakland as the region deals with skyrocketing costs of living and a shortage of affordable housing.”

acruise 2

Have these liberals in California all lost their minds?

Seriously…, I’m seriously asking.

Their “solutions” just seem to be getting dumber and dumber.

acruise 15

I’ve heard they have excellent buffets on cruise ships, but our drug addicted friends may find it hard to find a fix if they’re confined to the ship.

And there would be a lot for them to do on the ship, but it seems all these homeless people do is lay around and sleep all day.

acruise 16

I don’t think we’d see a lot of them in the pool or on the water slide, but I could be wrong.

‘“It could be a great way to house a lot of people quickly,’ Kaplan told the San Francisco Chronicle. ‘Cruise ships have been used for emergency housing after natural disasters and for extra housing for things like Olympics.’”

“Homelessness has spiked in Oakland, with a 47 percent jump in two years — one of the largest surges of any California city, according to a one-night street count released in July.”

acruise 6

“The count, which used federal guidelines, showed Oakland had 4,017 homeless people, up from 2,761 in 2017. The increase has put the city’s per capita homeless rate higher than neighboring San Francisco and Berkeley.”

acruise 9

“Kaplan told the Chronicle she plans to present a proposal to the council in January that will be at “no or low” cost to the city, because residents of the cruise ship would pay for rooms based on their income. The city would not buy the cruise ship.”

I would like to go on record with my prediction that if this idea does come to fruition, it will NOT be at little or no cost to the city.

“The council president added that she has been contacted by cruise ship companies about providing a ship for emergency housing and that the companies – which were not named – were reaching out to the Port of Oakland about mooring options at the port.”

“The idea for a cruise ship in Oakland would be similar to the Queen Mary in Long Beach in Southern California.”

“The 1936 ocean liner is now a floating hotel with 347 rooms, where a room with two twin beds goes for $141 a night and $146 a night for a full-size bed.”

‘“It could be like that,’ Kaplan told the paper. ‘But as affordable housing instead of hotel.’”

Ha!

Something just doesn’t seem right here.

Why in the world would cruise ship companies be contacting the Oakland City Council, offering to let the city use their ships for housing homeless people?

Would anyone like to take a guess as to how long it would be before the ship was completely trashed and deemed worthless?

One month?

Two months?

Three months?

I’m sure these cruise ship companies have an interest in doing something along the lines of the Queen Mary in Long Beach, with a hotel type of situation; not as some sort of floating homeless repository!

There are also many port related issues and regulatory issues standing in the way of this happening as well.

It’s obvious that the liberal politicians are confused and haven’t done their homework…, like usual, regarding this brilliant idea.

“Cruise ships have been used as emergency housing before. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Federal Emergency Management Agency chartered three luxury cruise liners to provide housing for up to 8,000 people that were left homeless after the storm. That $236 million contract was later scrutinized in a study released in 2006 by House Democrats, which said it proved ‘wasteful for the federal taxpayer’ because it ended up costing $50,000 to house a single person for six months, more than $300 per person for each night’s lodging.”

Remember the words, “at no or low cost to the city?”

The logical progression of this line of thinking would be to eventually buy an island and dump the homeless people off there for a permanent vacation!

Out of sight out of mind!

These liberals are really something, aren’t they?

That being said, I would like to offer my services and submit for your consideration, my proposal to deal with this homeless crisis.

Typically, communities are spending an adequate amount of money to address their homeless problem…, they’re just not spending their money appropriately or wisely.

There are many different reason for being “homeless.”

First, we need to divide the homeless into areas of situation and areas of need.

Families are treated differently, and routed to a family specific center.  Families would have all of the same considerations that individuals do plus the additional considerations for any children, regarding family continuity, safety considerations and school requirements.

acruise 12

acruise 11

If we’re dealing with an individual, we need to determine what exactly their situation is and route them at an appropriate assistance center.

Each of the following determinations would have its own specific assistance center.

We start and the top of this list and work our way down.  A person may fit into multiple stops on this list before finally not being “homeless” anymore.

Our overall goal is to not have anyone living on the streets, and to make sure everyone is being properly treated for whatever may be ailing them.

Is the person physically ill?

Is the person mentally ill?

Is the person addicted to drugs?

Does the person have an alcohol addiction?

Is this person disabled, receiving assistance, but needs shelter?

Does this person need shelter and help getting assistance?

acruise 10

Does this person need shelter and help getting employment?

Is this person a victim of circumstances not covered above?

 

Once the proper determination has been made, the individual would either receive the required medical treatment, be treated for their respective mental illness, treated for their addiction, and/or assisted with their administrative processes.

acruise 13

Our homeless population doesn’t need “band aid” or “feel good” solutions.

Our homeless need real solutions, and so do we.

People don’t mind paying for things that make sense, are effective, and that are run efficiently.

If I ever come across a government program like this I’ll let you know.

Until then, we can always hope.

 

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

As usual, the democrats just don’t get it, or they refuse to acknowledge reality.

adems 7

As reported in the annual Annenberg survey, only 32% of Americans can name our three branches of government and 33% can’t name any of the branches of our government!

adems 1

With that in mind, I realize I’m going a little out on a limb here discussing British politics…, but I believe MrEricksonRules’ readers are well informed and interested in how the recent British elections may relate to the upcoming U.S. election in 2020.

According to Adam Shaw, Paul Steinhauser and Kelly Phares of Fox News, “Left-wing Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn saw his party mauled in Britain’s general election Thursday as its strongholds across the country fell to Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party — a dramatic result that commentators on both sides of the pond are seeing as a warning to socialist-leaning Democrats ahead of the U.S. presidential election.”

adems 9

“And for those who have openly cautioned about the party’s drift to the left, the U.K. results were treated as nothing short of a wake-up call. A sign, for some, that even a populist incumbent as irreverent and contentious as Johnson could ride to victory when the alternative is an equally controversial leftist vowing massive government expansion.”

Or perhaps an irreverent populist is just what the British people are looking for!

The liberals would never admit that, however.  This was obviously just some sort of mistake or a strategical miscalculation.

‘“Maybe this is the canary in the coal mine,’ Democratic presidential hopeful Michael Bloomberg, who has tried to sell himself as a more electable alternative to candidates like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders since entering the race last month, told reporters Friday.”

adems 6

And therein lies the problem with the democrats…, they’re always trying to “sell themselves” as something they’re not rather than just being honest about what they stand for.

Anyway…, nice analogy Mr. Bloomberg!

Only you think the canary dying symbolizes some sort of a warning for liberals, while I think it is symbolizing the death of the Democrat Party!

‘“The public clearly wanted a change in the U.K. The change was much more rapid and [had] greater magnitude than anyone had predicted. And I think it’s sort of a catastrophic warning to the Democratic Party that you’re just going to have to have somebody that can beat Donald Trump, and that is not going to be easy.”

adems 2

The problem here is, “Bloomy,” otherwise known as “Mr. Excitement…,” the majority of the people have to want a change for some reason, and President Trump hasn’t given them one. In fact, he has acquired supporters who feel he has, and is, doing a good job.

President Trump has proven he’s not your typical politician.

He has kept all of his campaign promises, and has accumulated quite a list of accomplishments along the way regarding the economy, energy, VA policies, positive minority policies, trade imbalances and foreign policy, just to name a few.

“Americans want change, but I think they don’t want revolutionary change,” the centrist billionaire said. “They want evolutionary change.”

What does that mean?

Please…, don’t even pretend to know what most Americans want, “Bloomy.”

adems 3

“[Boris] Johnson’s Tories won 365 seats in Parliament’s lower chamber, with Labour picking up just 203. It hands the Conservatives their biggest majority since the days of Margaret Thatcher and marks the worst showing for Labour since the 1930s. The left-wing party was left shell-shocked after a night that saw once-safe seats in working-class areas turn Tory, with enormous swings that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.”

Ha!  Ya…, we know what “shell-shocked liberals look like!

adems 10

“Seats in places such as Bolsover, Workington, Blyth Valley, Burnley, Wrexham and Stoke-on-Trent toppled one after another, each one yet another nail in the coffin of Labour’s hopes of ushering in a socialist government and preventing Britain’s departure from the European Union. It represented what many commentators are seeing as a realignment in British politics, as the Conservatives ripped up the electoral map and made gains in the North East, the North West and Wales in particular.”

This is comparable to President Trump winning the “rust belt” manufacturing states, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin in the 2016 presidential election.

adems 11

“Corbyn announced that he would eventually step down, promising not to lead the party in another general election, but saying that would come after a ‘period of reflection.’ He quickly tried to set the narrative that it was questions over Brexit, not his brand of hard-left policies that had ‘ultimately doomed the party.’”

Like I said…, these liberals just don’t get it.

There won’t be any “period of reflection…,” only a period of “restrategization.”

‘“All those policies were extremely popular during the election campaign and remain policies that have huge popular support all across this country,’ he said. ‘However Brexit has so polarized and divided debate in this country it has overriden so much of a normal political debate and I recognize that has contributed to the results the Labour Party has received all across this country.’”

Please stop trying to kid yourself and the British people.  I mean, we can all see exactly how “extremely popular” your policies were across your country.

Wa, wa, wa, waaaaaa.

“But while many of the seats that fell represent ‘pro-Leave’ [pro-Brexit] areas, polls suggested that it was Corbyn — and his extreme brand of left-wing politics — that was a more significant factor for Brits. Corbyn had taken over the party leadership in 2015 and dragged it to the left in a rejection of the kind of centrism embodied by three-term Prime Minister Tony Blair.”

Like I said…, these liberals just don’t get it, and they are refusing to allow the will of the people to affect their narrative.

“It’s a lesson that many in the U.K. and the U.S. are saying should be a warning for Democrats who may think that victory lies with an uncompromising agenda featuring government health care, immigration enforcement rollbacks and more. Democrats like Sens. Sanders, I-Vt., and Warren, D-Mass., have promoted far-reaching policies such as ‘Medicare-for-all’ and a halt to deportations of illegal immigrants — leading some to fear they may be out of step with the country.”

They’re only “out of step” with those of us who want to see America succeed.

They’re only “out of step” with those of us who work, or have worked, for a living.

And they’re only “out of step” with those of us who are informed and use our common sense.

adems 12

‘“One lesson from the UK: if the Democrats don’t stop their hard-left slide, they’ll suffer the same fate as Labour,’ commentator Andrew Sullivan tweeted. ‘If they don’t move off their support for mass immigration, they’re toast. Ditto the “wokeness.” Left [leaning] Twitter is not reality.’”

No worries there!

Toast it is!

“Former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan warned also about the Twitter bubble, and that Democrats should be careful about picking someone too far on the fringes.”

‘“Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren both share Jeremy Corbyn’s socialist agenda and both appear to be as popular as him on Twitter,’ Morgan said in an op-ed. ‘But Twitter’s not the real world.’”

“He also drew comparisons between the British Left’s effort to thwart Brexit and the Democratic push to impeach Trump, rather than beat him at the ballot box.”

‘“Those who voted for Brexit and Trump don’t take kindly to their democratic vote being abused in this way and their retribution comes at the ballot box,’ he said. ‘If people think Boris Johnson’s earthquake was big, just wait until the Senate acquits President Trump and he uses that victory to storm to re-election.’”

Amen!

adems 10

“But if there is that kind of warning for Americans, it may be a message that meets significant resistance from activists hoping for their own version of a Corbynite revolution, and who may not be put off by the warning signs in Thursday’s vote.”

In other words…, the anti-American liberals, “the swamp,” RINOs (Mitt Romney for example), and the generally clueless.

adems 5

“MSNBC host Chris Hayes pointed out that Corbyn is running in a way that many Democrats would like to see.”

Again…, like I said…, these liberals just don’t get it, and they are refusing to allow the will of the people to affect their narrative.

‘“One thing you can’t say about the Corbyn campaign was that he was “Tory lite” [conservative lite] or too neoliberal or too establishment. He ran unabashedly from the left in a way many leftists want Democrats to run here in the U.S.,’ he tweeted. But after some criticism he deleted it, saying it was a ‘bad take.’”

And that was his problem!

Here we had a liberal that didn’t pretend to be something he wasn’t.

And that’s exactly why he and his party got whooped so bad!

“But the message of the U.K. election had also resonated in the White House. On Friday, [President] Trump suggested that just as the 2016 Brexit referendum foreshadowed his own presidential win a few months later, the 2019 U.K. election forecasts a win for him in 2020.”

‘“I want to congratulate Boris Johnson on a terrific victory. I think that might be a harbinger of what’s to come in our country,’ he said. ‘It was last time.’”

It might very well be a “harbinger of what’s to come in our country,” Mr. President.

adems 13

And if that were the case, that would mean a landslide victory you.

But what would a “landslide” victory look like for you?

First of all, a landslide victory for you would include your personal victory as well as maintaining control of the senate and regaining control of the House of Representatives.

Second, we would see you capturing a considerable majority of electoral votes.

What do I mean by a “considerable majority of electoral votes?”

Well, there are 538 total electoral votes that can be won.

The winner is the first candidate to win 270 of those votes.

The democrat in the race is virtually guaranteed to win 151 votes because of the liberal dominance in states like California, New York, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia.

That means a landslide victory for President Trump would be in the range of 340-350 electoral votes.  He won 304 electoral votes in 2016.

Lastly, President Trump would come very close to, if not winning the popular vote outright.

It is my belief that President Trump WILL win re-election in a “landslide” victory in 2020.

WINNING!

adems 14

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Congratulations mainstream media!  You’re not only liberal propaganda…, you’re a bunch of bullies!

In the age of “bully awareness,” the mainstream media has unabashedly claimed the title of “bully.”

abullies 12

Every company and every organization has an anti-bullying policy these days.

The problem is with these liberals…, they think it only applies to them.

If you think differently than they do you’re fair game.

And when it comes to President Trump and his family, all bets are off.

In fact, liberals applaud other liberals for bullying “non-liberals.”

There’s a name for this…, it’s fascism.

Yes folks…, it’s one thing to mercilessly attack, constantly denounce, and shamelessly promote negative propaganda about The President…, but it’s completely another thing to heartlessly shun and verbally bully our First Lady.

abullies 8

abullies 7

The mainstream media has left no doubt as to their shallowness, their extreme bias, their pettiness, and their ruthlessness.

The mainstream media should be ashamed of themselves…, but they won’t be.

I’m afraid we’ll all have to be ashamed enough for them.

abullies 13

What has caused me to focus my ire on the media you might ask?

Just the latest in a LONG line of snubs and bullying behavior towards our lovely and gracious First Lady, Melania Trump.

abullies 2

According to Gerren Keith Gaynor of Fox News, “Melania Trump’s Christmas tree exhibit compared to horror film by online critics.”

And not only by “online critics,” but by many media outlets.

“First Lady Melania Trump’s White House Christmas tree display, which she debuted on Sunday, is on the receiving end of online mockery.”

“Some critics said the first lady’s ‘Spirit of America’ video was reminiscent of a horror film, comparing some of its contents to the scary movie classic ‘The Shining.’”

abullies 3

Here is the link to the video…, you be the judge.

https://youtu.be/pgAAdNaL4oM

That was just terrible, wasn’t it?

What are these bullies and idiots talking about?!

It is just so obvious that these people just have a liberal propaganda ax to grind.

“This comes after the two previous exhibits — last year’s ‘blood red trees’ and 2017’s hallway of ‘sticks’ — were also compared to horror flicks such as ‘The Blair Witch Project.’”

‘“The Spirit of America is shining in the @WhiteHouse!’ the first lady tweeted Sunday night. ‘I am delighted to share this beautiful exhibit of patriotism for all to see, and excited for everyone to experience the beauty of the #Christmas season!’”

abullies 1

If the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” isn’t criticizing her actions, they’re criticizing her clothing, or they’re just ignoring her altogether.

Case in point…, former first lady Michelle Obama “graced” the cover of over 35 magazines, many of them on multiple occasions, during President Barack Obama’s two terms in the White House.

35 magazines!

abullies 4

abullies 5

It’s hard to even come up with names of 35 different magazines!

And how many magazine covers has Melania Trump been on?

Zero.

Say what?!

ZERO!

That can’t be possible you might say.

Oh it’s possible alright.

Zero.

35+ to 0.

And did you catch the title on the “Vogue” cover?  “Michelle Obama, The First Lady the World’s been waiting for?

Excuse me…, but I think I just threw up a little in my mouth!

abullies 11

The American people can surely recognize a bully when they see one, and the mainstream media is not treating Melania Trump fairly by any stretch of the imagination.

Bullies.

They’re all bullies…, and nobody likes a bully…, except other bullies.

abullies 9

abullies 11

abullies 6

 

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

 

 

My first edition of MrEricksonRules’ “Swampy” Nursey Rhymes!

arhymes 3

arhymes 2

arhymes 5

An Ode to Peter Strzok, ala “Peter, Peter pumpkin eater”

 

Peter, Peter lyin’ cheater,

Had a wife but was a creeper;

He blew her off so very well

And put her through a living hell.

Peter, Peter lyin’ cheater,

Lisa Paige she was his sleeper;

Peter learned to text so well,

With his lover he did tell.

 

He told her of his insurance plan

And how their coup would beat the man.

 

They did this as they dreamed away,

Of how Hillary would win the day.

 

Now soon the deep state will pay the price,

For their treasonous behavior, they’re now in the vice.

 

arhymes 7

arhymes 8

A tribute to Adam Schiff, said to “Pop goes the weasel!”

 

Claiming Trump is guilty again,

With evidence he does teasle.

That’s the way Adam Schiff goes,

Pop! Goes the weasel.

 

Every time we turn around,

The fake news it does teasle,

Each Schiff-ty lie they do decry,

Pop! Goes the weasel.

 

Now an impeachment dream we hear him scream,

With so-called evidence the “witnesses” teasle,

Lie and lie and cry and cry,

Pop! Goes the weasel.

 

arhymes 9

arhymes 10

James Comey’s Theme Song, sung to “Bingo”

 

There was a Bureau led byyy a tool,

and Comey was his name-o.

C-O-M-E-Y

C-O-M-E-Y

C-O-M-E-Y

And Comey was his name-o.

 

He spied on his boss and played a fool,

and Comey was his name-o.

C-O-M-E-Y

C-O-M-E-Y

C-O-M-E-Y

And Comey was his name-o.

 

He acted tough and thought he was cool,

and Comey was his name-o.

C-O-M-E-Y

C-O-M-E-Y

C-O-M-E-Y

And Comey was his name-o.

 

About the coup he led the school,

and Comey was his name-o.

C-O-M-E-Y

C-O-M-E-Y

C-O-M-E-Y

And Comey was his name-o.

 

For treason he’ll be judged by rule,

and Comey was his name-o.

C-O-M-E-Y

C-O-M-E-Y

C-O-M-E-Y

And Comey was his name-o.

 

arhymes 11

The ballad of Chuck and Nancy, said to May had a little lamb

 

Chuckie knew a snarky witch,

Her teeth were white as snow,

And everywhere that Chuckie went

This witch was sure to go;

She followed him to a meeting one day—

And tried to lay down the rule,

It made the fake news laugh and say,

Nancy, don’t play the fool.

 

And so the Pres he turned them out,

But still she lingered near,

And waited patiently there about,

Till Chuckie did appear;

They spun their story like they always do

Lying straight to all our faces.

They act like they’re noble but they don’t know,

We think they’re both disgraces!

 

arhymes 13

arhymes 12

A quick little blurb about Joe Biden to “Georgie Porgie”

 

Joey Biden, pudding and pie,

Groped the girls and made them cry,

When the girls cried “not today!”

Joey Biden ran away.

 

 

Hey…, I’m a poet and I didn’t even know it!

I  hope you enjoyed this first edition of MrEricksonRules’ “Swampy” Nursey Rhymes!

Stay tuned for my second edition in the near future.  I’m working on some good ones already!

arhymes 14

arhymes15

WINNING!

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

What are the implications of “ballot harvesting?”

First of all, what is “ballot harvesting?”

Luis Gomez of the San Diego Union-Tribune say, ‘“Ballot harvesting’ is political jargon for a practice in which organized workers or volunteers collect absentee ballots from certain voters and drop them off at a polling place or election office.”

Prior to 2016, turning in absentee ballots was restricted to just relatives of or those living in the same household as the voter.

Since 2016, any person is allowed to collect a mail-in ballot, or thousands of mail-in ballots, from voters and turn in the mail ballot to a polling place or the registrar’s office.

Can you begin to see the potential problems here?

balloth 1

While critics of the new absentee ballot laws are complaining about the potential for voter fraud, the proponents of the new laws say it allows more eligible citizens to participate in elections.  Ya…, even those “eligible citizens” who had no intention of voting, or better yet…, “eligible citizens” who aren’t “eligible,” or those “eligible citizens” who aren’t even “citizens,” or those “eligible citizens” who aren’t even real, live, people!

balloth 4

The Heritage Foundation calls it the “tool of choice for vote thieves.”

balloth 3

In California, ballot harvesting was used to flip seven Republican seats to the Democratic column in 2018.

According to former congressman and Fox News contributor, Jason Chaffetz, “The indication that ballot harvesting made the difference in California can be found in the vote proportions. Studies of absentee voters have consistently shown they tend to reflect the population or lean slightly to the right. But when ballot harvesting was deployed in California, we saw late ballots break heavily for Democrats.”

“Take, for example, the race between former Republican Rep. David Valadao and Democrat T. J. Cox in California’s rural 21st district. When polls closed, Valadao led Cox by 6,000 votes — or 8 percent. That margin was wide enough for media outlets to call the race for Valadao.”

“However, late ballots delivered by third-party groups broke so heavily for Cox that he ultimately eked out an 843-vote victory. The results after ballot harvesting were very different from the polling before the race and since.”

balloth 6

So the new election game plan is to see how many votes your candidate is losing by after all of the conventional votes have been cast, then go back and produce as many absentee ballot votes as you need to win.

Brilliant!

Too bad it’s also cheating and illegal.

What is the voting scenario going to be if both parties decide to partake of this practice?

First the traditional voting takes place…, then one party produces enough votes to jump ahead…, then the other party produces enough votes to jump back ahead…, then the other party, then the other party, and so on and so on.

When would the voting end?

With this scenario, we could have 500,000 votes cast in a district with only 200,000 eligible voters!

Something needs to be done about this whole absentee ballot situation.

I’d like to refer to a couple of my previous blogs to offer-up some answers.

The first blog is from November 5, 2018, and is titled, “It’s not “just” one vote.  It’s MY one vote!”

If the American people lose confidence in the integrity of our election system, we are one big step closer to our republic dissolving right before our eyes.

We hear about examples of voter fraud, and liberals (And please note: The issue of voter fraud is almost exclusively synonymous with liberals/democrats) are always quick to discount our voter fraud concerns as “not that prevalent,” “inconsequential,” “unfounded,” or “very rare.”  Then they will quickly turn the discussion to the “real” problem, in their minds, of voter suppression, which truly is virtually a non-existent problem.

Anyone who wants to vote in this country surely gets every opportunity to do so.

Can you imagine how quickly the “biased, liberal, fake news media” would jump on any credible case of voter suppression?

balloth 7

I rest my case.

Okay.  Back to the concerns about voter fraud.

The big question is how many fraudulent votes are acceptable?

Who’s going to the first one to stand up and volunteer to have their vote cancelled out by a fraudulent vote?

Not me.

And I’m guessing not you either.

The right to vote in a free and fair election is our most basic civil right, and one on which many other rights of the American people depend.

Our government should be able to guarantee that every eligible individual who wants to vote can, and that no one’s vote is stolen or discounted.

Voter fraud is real and hundreds of convictions have been made and documented.

balloth 2

According to The Heritage Foundation:

Contrary to the claims of many liberals, the problem of voter fraud is as old as the country itself.  As the U.S. Supreme Court noted when it upheld Indiana’s voter identification law in 2008, “flagrant examples” of voter fraud “have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists.”

Attempts to commandeer election results have been documented dating back to the 1800’s.  In one New York election in 1844, 55,000 votes were recorded even though there were only 41,000 eligible voters. Decades later, these efforts have continued and determined fraudsters have become only more creative in their efforts to fix the outcome of elections.

So what are the different types of election fraud that liberals use in an attempt to undermine our election system?  Well, here they are:

Impersonation fraud at the polls: Voting in the name of other legitimate voters and voters who have died, moved away, lost their right to vote for some reason, but remain registered.

False registrations: Voting under fraudulent voter registrations that either use a phony name and a real or fake address or claim residence in a particular jurisdiction where the registered voter does not actually live and is not entitled to vote.

Duplicate voting: Registering in multiple locations and voting in the same election in more than one jurisdiction or state.

Fraudulent use of absentee ballots: Requesting absentee ballots and voting without the knowledge of the actual voter; or obtaining the absentee ballot from a voter and either filling it in directly and forging the voter’s signature or illegally telling the voter who to vote for.

Buying votes: Paying voters to cast either an in-person or absentee ballot for a particular candidate.

Illegal “assistance” at the polls: Forcing or intimidating voters, particularly the elderly, disabled, illiterate, and those for whom English is a second language, to vote for particular candidates while supposedly providing them with “assistance.”

Ineligible voting: Illegal registration and voting by individuals who are not U.S. citizens, or are otherwise not eligible to vote.

Manipulating someone’s vote automatically at the voting machine.

Altering the vote count: Changing the actual vote count either in a precinct or at the central location where votes are counted.

Altering the vote count: Changing the actual vote count either in a precinct or at the central location where votes are counted.

So, who is responsible for ensuring the integrity of our elections?

Each state is generally responsible for the administration of its own electoral systems, including elections for federal office.  This being the case, I feel we open ourselves up to many problems, mostly because the states don’t have access to national databases, which presents the possibility of citizens being registered in multiple states and voting in multiple states.

Of course MrEricksonRules has his own remedy for all of our voting integrity woes!

First, our government needs to establish a new national holiday called “Election Day,” of course.  This would offer everyone every opportunity and ample time to vote.  Especially those people who work for a living.

balloth 5

There would be no “early” voting.  All voting would occur on Election Day.

All voting machines would be identical, and issued to the states by the federal government.

Polling stations would be manned by current federal and/or state employees.  This would give us a level of accountability we currently don’t have.

All votes would have to be cast in person.  The practice of using absentee ballots would be discontinued.  Military personnel would vote at their duty stations and their votes would be routed to their corresponding state based on a military database.  Others unable to be in their “home” state to vote on Election Day would be able to cast a provisional ballot in the state they were physically in, then each state would then be responsible for sending these votes to their respective states.  These votes would only be counted if the total number of provisional votes could potentially change the outcome of the election.

Every adult individual would be required to obtain a Federal Voter Identification Card, if they want to vote.

An initial “national voter database” would be established by cross referencing the IRS database, national military databases, national benefit databases, Social Security databases, along with Medicare and Medicaid databases.

Initial Federal Voter Identification Cards would then be mailed out based on this database.  People not receiving cards by a given date would then be responsible for acquiring a card at designated state or federal locations.

Any person voting who could not be verified on the national voter database would be casting a provisional ballot.

Once you have voted, this would be entered into the national voting database, which would limit you from voting again, in the current election.

There you go.

Problem solved.

Any other problems or issues of national importance may be submitted at any time to Mr. Erickson at MrEricksonRules.com.

“The right to vote cannot come before the integrity of the vote.  They have to go hand in hand.” – Mr. Erickson

Joseph Stalin, who ruled the Soviet Union (Russia) from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953, said, “It doesn’t matter how many people vote, only who counts the votes.”

ballot 20

“We do not have government by the majority.  We have government by the majority who participate.” – Thomas Jefferson

“A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.” – President Teddy Roosevelt

The second blog is from August 7, 2018, and is titled, “Voting is such sweet sorrow that I shall say ‘one vote per citizen’ till it be morrow.” ― Will Shakespeare (not to be confused with William Shakespeare)

While there are many groups and organizations out there that deal with the right to vote, there are not many out there that promote our right to make sure our vote counts.

Which is more serious, obstructing someone’s right to vote or negating someone’s vote with an illegal ballot?

I would argue that both scenarios are just as serious in their own rights.

I feel the penalties for defrauding our voting systems should be increased significantly.  The penalties for tampering with votes should be quite severe in any case.

Just as violating someone’s civil rights to cast a vote is a serious crime, with stiff penalties, so too it should be a very serious crime to negate, or steal, the vote of others by casting illegal/fraudulent ballots.

If we as a country cannot be confident in the integrity of our elections, we are on a slippery slope towards anarchy.

Our voting laws and procedures should also strike a balance between the right to vote and the right to have your vote count.

All US citizens should be eligible to vote, of course, along with the following considerations:

There should be no early voting.  Voting should take place on one day.  This one day should be a national holiday, so everyone has time to vote.

There should be no absentee voting or mail-in ballots, except for people serving our military or government overseas, and this should be strictly controlled.

A photo ID should be required.  Either a driver’s license or a state ID card, with an address of residence.

Along with the photo ID, a social security card should also be presented, identifying the person as a US citizen.

A federal election should be covered by federal election laws, not differing state laws.

Just recently I read an article by Lukas Mikelionis of Fox News.  In his article, he points out that, “The names of non-US citizens are increasingly being found on our voter rolls, thanks to covert registration methods, with nothing actually stopping them from casting a ballot in an election.”

In a recent example, Mikelionis relates the story of Elizaveta Shuvalova, a Russian citizen who became a U.S. citizen only last year in 2017, but was oddly registered as an eligible voter in 2012 and added to the San Francisco voter rolls, according to The Washington Times.

“She was perplexed to find herself in the voter rolls, saying she wasn’t an American citizen and didn’t even register to vote.”

“‘I’ve never registered for anything in my entire life,’ Shuvalova told the paper. ‘This is news to me.’”

He went on to explain that, “The woman’s voter log shows that she signed up as a Democrat in July 2012.  In 2016, her registration was canceled after she informed election authorities that she wasn’t eligible to vote because she wasn’t yet a U.S. citizen.”

(Hmm, she was illegally signed up to vote as a democrat of all things!  How unusual…NOT!)

“‘This is definitely a shocker to me.  It is like an identity fraud because this is not coming from me,’ the woman, who identifies as a Democrat, said. ‘Like I told you, I haven’t even been a citizen during that time frame.  So what can we do about it?’”

“But the case of Shuvalova is part of a larger concern some groups have when it comes to the integrity of our elections.  They claim that stories like hers are a common occurrence in many parts of the country.”

“The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), a nonprofit specializing in election integrity, found that non-Americans are being added to voter rolls in states such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Virginia as well.”

“For instance, in 2017, the group found that nearly 5,600 people on the voter rolls in Virginia were deemed as non-citizens, with a third of them voting in previous elections.”

(That equates to 5,600 actual citizens being robbed of their vote by having their vote cancelled out in many cases!)

“‘All of this could have been prevented if states actually verified citizen eligibility upfront,’ said PILF research director Logan Churchwell.”

“John Arntz, director of the San Francisco Department of Elections, told the Times that a signed registration card was submitted to the office to qualify the woman as a signer of the petition.  He added that activists often distribute registration cards along with their petitions.”

“Normally, election authorities should check the registration application with other databases such as the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and the secretary of state’s office to ensure the person is a citizen.”

(Yes, Mr. Arntz, checking these databases should be done, but apparently it isn’t being done, and you don’t seemed too overly concerned about it either.)

“The San Francisco election official said that Shuvalova could have easily gotten away with voting in elections before 2016 and she probably would have remained on the voter rolls as an eligible voter had she not informed officials.”

(Just another example of those damn Russians, oops, I mean those damn Democrats, meddling in our elections!)

“But Arntz told the Times that the woman’s story isn’t a reflection on whole the integrity of the election system.  (Of course it isn’t!)  ‘If it was a problem, this would be an issue that comes up every election or something we would have experienced more through time.  But it doesn’t,’ he said.”

(Oh, it happens alright.  You just haven’t been forced to acknowledge it until now.)

“‘I can’t remember forwarding an allegation that someone was a non-citizen who registered to vote or did vote,’ Arntz said.  He added that, ‘Nobody in San Francisco has yet been prosecuted for being a non-citizen on the voter rolls.”

(Yes, Mr. Arntz, and therein lies the problem.)

Tampering with the vote is an insidious crime that is like a cancer attacking the soul of our country.  This cancer must be dealt with, and it must be dealt with harshly and in no uncertain terms.

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of the page which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

Where’s the “quid pro quo?”  Look at “quid pro Joe!”

ajoe 9

Now that the impeachment attempt (the coup attempt) against President Trump has failed miserably for the democrats…, what are we left with?

ajoe 8

I’m sure we’ll have a pathetic vote in Congress to still impeach the president, even though their witch hunt (part two) failed to uncover ANYTHING President Trump actually did wrong.

ajoe 12

The Senate will then dispatch the fraudulent impeachment fairy tale in short order, and the democrats will be left to concoct yet another anti-Trump fairy tale.

The democrats and their co-conspirators, the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media,” will not be getting the impeachment of The President for Christmas!

They have not been very nice, but rather quite naughty!

Quite a few democrats and fake news journalists” will be finding coal (“beautiful clean burning coal”) in their Christmas stockings this year!

I also have a feeling that the upcoming Senate hearings and the newly announced investigations by the Ukrainian government will combine to make 2020 a bad year for Joe and Hunter Biden, the democrats, and the deep state in general.

ajoe 1

It’s a wonderful life!

I’d like to refer you to my blog from November 6, 2019 titled, “This is how President Trump could destroy Joe Biden in a debate in about 5 minutes:”

https://mrericksonrules.com/2019/11/06/this-is-how-president-trump-could-destroy-joe-biden-in-a-debate-in-about-5-minutes/

ajoe 5

ajoe 4

With the Inspector General’s report dealing with FISA court abuses, and U.S. Attorney John Durham’s criminal inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation results coming out just in time for Christmas, 2020 is shaping up to be a bad year for the democrats, which will be capped by another crushing defeat at the hands of President Trump and all of the loyalist American deplorables!

ajoe 16

ajoe 14

WINNING!!!

KEEP AMERICA GREAT!

USA! USA! USA!

ajoe 13

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Presidential pardons, and who are “the good guys” and who are “the bad guys?”

It’s interesting how the reactions to President Trump’s pardoning of Clint Lorance and Matt Golsteyn, and the restoring of the rank of Eddie Gallagher are being reacted to.

aclint 1

Joe Biden said, “Trump’s intervention in the American military justice system to pardon service members accused or convicted of war crimes betrays the rule of law, the values that make our country exceptional & the men and women who wear the uniform honorably. He is not fit to command our troops.”

Hmmm…, that’s funny, Joe.  You didn’t seem to mind when that traitor, Bowe Bergdahl, who fled his unit to join the enemy (ISIS), was pardoned by your old boss, Barack Hussein Obama.

Just more democrat hypocrisy and doublespeak in action.

In fact, the same people who kept their mouths shut about “Treasonous Bowe” Bergdahl are now the same ones castigating President Trump and bad mouthing real American heroes like Lorance, Golsteyn and Gallagher.

Now why would that be?

Is it because one group supports the liberal political and military establishment, who don’t really respect our military, while the other group supports our patriotic troops in the field?

Why does it seem lately that every time an issue comes down the road that is anti-American, in some sense, our liberal friends support it, and if the issue is pro-America or patriotic in any sense they are against it?

aclint 5

aclint 6

It appears that quite a few people have lost the sense of who the “good guys” are and who the “bad guys” are, if they ever had that sense to begin with.

We also have the group who ARE the “bad guys…” they know it, and deep down they’re really proud of it and proud of being able to pull the wool over the eyes of so many people.

“The good, the bad, and the ugly!”

aclint 7

In the cases of Lorance, Golsteyn and Gallagher, we had soldiers in active war zones who were being treated like and being charged like civilians, but in the kangaroo court that is the military justice system.

It’s kind of like the impeachment hearings going on right now, where all of the accused’s normal rights are suspended…, the accusers and prosecutors have an agenda…, and the accusers and prosecutors control the process!

I have heard about the cases of all three of these soldiers, and I have heard all three of them plead their case, and I believe that President Trump was justified in his actions regarding all three of them.

I am mainly going to talk about Army first lieutenant Clint Lorance and Army Green Beret Major Matt Golsteyn in this article, but I would encourage you to learn more about Navy Seal Chief Petty Officer Eddie Gallagher as well.

aclint 8

Clint Lorance was a first lieutenant in the U.S. Army who in August of 2013 was found guilty on two counts of second-degree murder for ordering soldiers in his platoon to open fire at three men on a motorcycle in southern Afghanistan in July of 2012.  He was confined in the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas until being recently pardoned.

aclint 11

One of Lorance’s defense attorneys, lawyer and author Don Brown, published a book in 2019 entitled “Travesty of Justice,” in which he argued that the Army did not permit the jury to consider evidence showing that Afghan National Army soldiers accompanying Lorance’s patrol began firing at the motorcycle first, and they also kept evidence from the jury suggesting the motorcycle riders were Taliban bomb makers.

The three men on the motorcycle were speeding towards the platoon and ignoring commands to stop.

This sure doesn’t seem like an action that could be characterized as a “war crime.”

This seems like an action that would be characterized as a typical day at the office when you’re in a war zone.

It seems to me that you would have to go out of your way, for some reason, to single this situation out, pursue a “case,” and carry it through to a court martial.

Was a guy on the motorcycle related to Barack Obama or something?

I mean, seriously!

There MUST have been some political reason, or some personal reason, or some other vindictive reason to pursue this case.  It just does not have the merits to stand on its own.

aclint 10

In a recent appearance on “FOX and Friends,” just days after his pardoning, Matt Golsteyn, along with his wife, made his feelings known.

aclint 9

I was very impressed by Matt and his wife.  They seemed like genuine people who had been done wrong…, until President Trump corrected the situation that is.

Also in an interview on FOX, Clint said he felt like he had been, “thrown under the bus,” regarding this whole mess.

I feel he was used as some kind of an example by the Obama administration to gain goodwill with either the Taliban, the Afghan government, or both.

Regarding his pardon, Lorance said, “I just can’t tell you enough how much I appreciate President Trump and Vice President Pence.  I love them…, they’re awesome.”

When he was asked what he would say to The President if he were watching, Clint said, “I love you, sir.  You’re awesome!  I only wish you had a better team around you.”

He went on to discuss how some of the people around him are obviously not supportive or even work against him…, in which case he felt these people should just leave the White House.

Referring to President Trump, Lorance said, “A soldier who knows that their commander loves them will go through the gates of hell and knock ‘em down” for them.

If you’d like to watch the interview for yourself, you can view it by clicking on the link below.  See if you don’t come away from the interview as impressed as I was.

https://youtu.be/ne3AX9tasKY

Way to go, Mr. President.  You just continue to reinforce what a good decision it was to vote for you in the first place.

KEEP AMERICA GREAT!!!

aclint 13

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

What are we left with if we ban anything that bothers anyone?

The answer is a paralyzed hot mess.

A “free” society is not a society that is worried about an individual’s feelings above all else.

A “free” society is a society which allows and tolerates everybody’s beliefs and feelings.

anyt 14

That being said, according to Brian Flood of Fox News, “The New York Times says airing the national anthem on TV could trigger viewers who hear ‘political overtones.’”

“Trigger?”

“Political overtones?”

anyt 5

Are we getting “political overtones” confused with patriotic overtones?

What is “political” about hearing and/or seeing the national anthem unless you’re anti-American?

anyt 13

“The New York Times ‘poo-pooed’ the long-standing tradition of television stations airing The Star-Spangled Banner because some night owl viewers could be offended by the ‘politically charged’ national anthem.”

Wait…, what?

The New York Times “poo-pooed?”

Well, like I said, they are creating a “hot mess” after all.

Again…, if you’re “offended” by the national anthem and consider it “politically charged,” then you’re probably either a very confused liberal…, someone here illegally in the first place…, or you are an enemy of our country…, and in any case I’m glad you’re offended.

anyt 4

“The piece, written by culture reporter Julia Jacobs, is headlined ‘Local TV Revives a Bygone Tradition: Airing the National Anthem,’ and declares that the song can ‘be a dividing line’ for some Americans.”

anyt 1

“Culture reporter?”  Why, how snooty and pretentious of you!

“The Times [Ms. Jacobs] noted that ‘one of popular culture’s generational divides’ is whether or not you are old enough to remember the days when ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ aired on television stations. The national anthem was historically played late at night, going back to the advent of television, typically amid visuals of patriotic imagery before the station signed off until the next morning.”

Oh really?

THIS is a generational divide of our culture?

I hardly think so, seeing that most of the people under 30 don’t even watch what us older folk would consider TV per se.  They watch things on their TV, but they don’t watch typical TV channel broadcasts, or even satellite or cable for that matter.

‘“Now, the early morning hours are filled with rebroadcasts and infomercials, eliminating any practical reason for a formal sign off,’ the Times [Ms. Jacobs] wrote.”

What kind of imbecile has nothing better to worry about than whether they’re playing the national anthem on TV at 4:00 AM in the morning or not?

That’s really digging deep to promote your anti-American ways!

anyt 2

“Some stations have revived the tradition but the Times wrote that some viewers ‘might hear political overtones’ as a result. Gray Television, CBS and Nexstar Media Group have led the way, with the National Anthem now played on more than 350 stations across America, according to the Times.”

‘“The decision to revive the anthem tradition comes at a time when overt allegiance to The Star-Spangled Banner has become one of the lines that separate blue and red America,’ the Times reporter wrote.”

Why say “blue and red?”  Why not say liberals and conservatives, or democrats and republicans?

Let’s not be afraid to name those who are overtly anti-America and those who are overtly pro-America.

Let’s draw a clear line and let people choose what side they’re on.

anyt 6

“Author, Tim Young asks, ‘Should it shock anyone at this point that the New York Times is trying to get people to be outraged at the airing of the National Anthem?’”

anyt 12

‘“It’s inspiring that local news is returning our National Anthem to an important place in our culture.  It’s astonishing that The Times would see that as a bad thing,’ Media Research Center vice president Dan Gainor told Fox News. ‘But if you pay close attention to the story, the paper admits that the left, including journalists, doesn’t like the national anthem.  That shows exactly who and what they really are.’”

Yes it does, Mr. Gainor…, yes it does.

“The paper admits that television executives haven’t heard many complaints and feedback has been ‘overwhelmingly positive,’ but that tidbit is buried roughly 1,400 words into the story.”

anyt 9

“Political satirist and author Tim Young told Fox News that this story “truly reveals the mindset” of the Gray Lady [“the Gray Lady” is a nickname for The New York Times newspaper].”

‘“Should it shock anyone at this point that the New York Times is trying to get people to be outraged at the airing of the national anthem? Their piece is written as if viewers should be skeptical of every element of the song and accompanying video,’ Young said. ‘They don’t like America and its anthem and they want you to dislike it as well.’”

anyt 11

“In the span of a week, the Washington Post calls a terrorist psychopath a ‘religious scholar’ and the Times is upset about the national anthem being played. These are supposed to be America’s top two news publications, and they seemingly hate America.”

anyt 10

What if I said I find The New York Times and The Washington Post offensive?

Would they maintain their integrity and shut down the publication of their newspapers?

Of course not.

People who find liberal speech or actions offensive are dismissed out of hand and ignored by the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media.”

In this fascist, liberal socialist world, they are promoting, the arbiters of what is deemed offensive are the ones who wield the power.

And “they…,” “the ones…,” would be the anti-Americans…, the liberals…, the democrats.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

The “liberal lexicon” according to MrEricksonRules.

When we listen to democrats, it is important to really understand what they’re saying and what they mean.

alex 11

alex 5

Feel free to use my “liberal lexicon” to aid you in your understanding of our deceptive and deceitful opposition.

 

African-Americans = fools we assume will vote for us no matter what

Anonymous source = I just made this up

Bipartisan = when there are enough stupid republicans to go along with the democrats on an issue or a law

Border Patrol = people who impede probable democrat voters from coming to America

Collusion = an act of inappropriate cooperation that can only be performed by a conservative

The Constitution = that annoying document that stops us from doing what we really want to do

Democracy = socialism

Democrat = anti-American socialist

The Democrat party = elite white liberals who put up with minorities in order to get elected

Election = an opportunity to hijack governmental power

Evidence = a desire to push a false narrative

The Founding Fathers = the racists who created our country

Free = paid for with other people’s money

Freedom of religion = free to be anything other than a Christian

Freedom of speech = speech which liberals deem appropriate

Freedom of the press = freedom to lie for a “good” reason

The Government = the people who know what’s better for you than you do

Greed = a selfish desire for something, which can only be associated with capitalism and/or conservatives

Higher education = liberal indoctrination

Hispanic-Americans = referring only to the unemployed or illegal Hispanics

Invest = redistribute wealth

Law abiding people = neo-nazis

Liberals = socialist wannabes

Liberalism = fascism

Mainstream media = the propaganda arm of the democrat party

Misremembered = conveniently forgot or lied

Misspoke = lied

The National Anthem = Conservatives’ racist/imperialistic theme song

“Our conservative friends” = “Our mortal enemies”

Patriots = “deep state” and “establishment” “tools” who put their party before the country

The Pledge of Allegiance = the pledge of right-wing, globalist enemies

The Police = annoying people who harass our illegal potential voters

Polls = fabricated statistics used to support a desired outcome

Poverty level = the level democrats desire all people to be at or below

Racist = anyone who doesn’t agree with me

Raising awareness = propaganda regarding a narrative

Recollection = a self-serving and manufactured memory

Refugees = probable future democrat voters

Safe zone = constitutional rights free zone

Sanctuary = area free of laws

Scandal = an inappropriate or illegal action which is attempted to be covered-up, but which can only be associated with a conservative or a conservative administration.

Taken out of context = you heard it or read it correctly

“The rich” = anyone with a job or retired from a job

Undocumented immigrants = probable future democrat voters

Unethical – that which is deemed unethical exclusively by the democrat party.  Democrats are incapable of unethical behavior.

The United States military = Imperialist American Forces

Watchdog = liberal activist

Whistleblower = unaccountable co-conspirator

White supremacist = any white person who isn’t a liberal

 

I hope this “liberal lexicon” helps make democrat-speak a little more understandable for you in the future.

If you have any other terms that you’d like to suggest for my liberal lexicon, please drop me a line!

alex 13

alex 9

alex 10

alex 2

alex 3

alex 18

alex 14

alex 15

alex 12

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑