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.

They still don’t get it!

And, again, by “they” I mean our wonderful politicians, our ever-diligent news media, and “the swamp” in general, regarding the protesters coming to Washington.

Let me begin by giving Vice President Mike Pence a shout-out for his contribution at the Senate’s electoral vote session!   

Hey…, I know!

Maybe, if the DOJ and FBI had done their jobs investigating election fraud, there would have been no need for the protesters to come to Washington.

How about that?

And former Attorney General Bill Barr has the nerve to say, “President Donald Trump’s conduct…, was a betrayal of his office and supporters.”

If anyone betrayed his office, it was you, Barr.   

In a statement to The Associated Press (AP), Barr said Thursday that, “orchestrating a mob to pressure Congress is inexcusable.”

What’s wrong with “pressuring Congress” to uphold The Constitution?

You should have tried it yourself more often.

The AP continued by saying, “Barr was one of Trump’s most loyal and ardent defenders in the Cabinet.”

Wait for it…, wait for it…

Excuse me, but I had to stop laughing before I could continue!

With friends like that, who needs enemies?!

Can we get any “fact checkers” to validate that statement?

Oops…, I forgot that “fact checkers” only “fact check” statements made by conservatives.

Fact checking the “fake news” is not allowed.

The Ap continues by saying, “Barr resigned last month amid lingering tension over the president’s baseless claims of election fraud and the investigation into Biden’s son.”

“Baseless claims,” huh?

I think you would have to actually do some investigating before you could determine the claims were “baseless.”

All you would’ve had to do was pretend you were checking into election fraud, and that may have been enough.

But you couldn’t even be bothered to do that.  

Maybe, if The Supreme Court had even bothered to hear Texas’ lawsuit, which was backed by 17 other states by the way, there would have been no need for the protesters to come to Washington.

But no one even wanted to hear about election fraud, and all of our concerns were dismissed out of hand.

Texas and the other 17 states’ concerns were just completely unfounded and unworthy of even listening to their concerns.

Again, all The Supreme Court would’ve had to do was consider the states’ concerns of election fraud, and that may have been enough.

But they couldn’t even be bothered to do that. 

Were they afraid of having to consider the truth?

It sure seems that way.

This is why the protesters showed up in Washington.

THEY WERE ALL TIRED OF HAVING TO PUT UP WITH ALL OF THE LIBERAL AND ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN BS, WHILE HAVING NO RECOURSE NOW, SINCE THE ELECTION PROCESS HAS APPARENTLY BEEN COMPROMISED, AND NOBODY SEEMS TO CARE!   

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.

I thought protests were good?

Even “protests” that included vandalism, looting, burning, and attacking police officers.

Repeatedly, we were told how these people must be allowed to protest, and if we disagreed we were racist and unamerican. 

While protesters occupied the capitol today, I heard commentators wonder where republicans were who were denouncing this behavior?

Really?

Excuse me, but while we watched cities burn this summer, for months and months, did we hear any democrats talk out against their behavior?

And these people were “protesting” the unfortunate death of an individual in police custody.

The capitol protesters are protesting the unconstitutional election practices, and election fraud in some of the states, and the potential death of democracy in our country, if we choose to look the other way and allow a stealing of an election to happen.  

While someone’s death is a sad thing, the death of our country would seem much more protest worthy.

Just sayin’.

Joe Biden came out today saying how “we are so much better than this,” and how “this behavior must end immediately.”

Oh…, well, hello Joe. 

You didn’t say a word for months while BLM and ANTIFA were allowed to do whatever they wanted to in cities across our country. 

I guess all protests are not created equal, huh?

When conservatives protest, that needs to be squashed immediately, right?

We also heard a woman was shot in the capitol by security police there. 

I’ll be interested to hear how heavily armed she was.

These are just my initial thoughts.

Stay tuned for more tomorrow as we learn more.

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.

Brad “Benedict Arnold” Raffensperger.

In case you don’t know, I’m talking about Brad Raffensperger, the supposed republican, and the Georgia Secretary of State.

The same secretary of state who denies any irregularities occurred during the Georgia presidential election.

The same secretary of state who cut a backroom deal with Stacey Abrams (Georgia politician, lawyer, and voting rights [really election fraud] activist, who served in the Georgia House of Representatives from 2007 to 2017, serving as minority leader from 2011 to 2017.) which basically removed any accountability requirements for mail-in ballots, without the approval from the state legislature, which would be unconstitutional, if anyone would care to notice.  

The same secretary of state who refuses to release any of their data from the election, and the same secretary of state who, along with their RINO (Republican in Name Only) governor, Brian kemp, has not allowed a special session of their own legislature to investigate the allegations of election fraud.

Allegations supported by security camera video and dozens of signed affidavits.

According to CBS 46 News in Atlanta, “The video tape evidence alleges proof of ballots being counted without oversight. A subcommittee comprised of both Republicans and Democrats held a hearing at the State Capitol for perhaps the biggest bombshell presented to lawmakers from inside State Farm Arena.”

“For the first time, the president’s legal team, led by [Rudy] Giuliani, presented surveillance video from the state’s largest voting center. The video allegedly shows people taking out at least four boxes of ballots from underneath a table, and then counting them after hours with no election supervisors present.”

‘“The same person that stayed behind, the person that cleared the place out under the pretense that we are going to stop counting is the person who put the table there at 8:22 in the morning. I saw four suitcases come out from underneath the table,’ Attorney Jacki Pick said.”

“It is believed that each box consisted of about 6,000 ballots. If accurate, that would amount to about 24,000 potential votes.”

And yet, these documented election violations are dismissed with a wave of a hand.

Now why would that be?

Because Brad and his scurvy friends have since investigated themselves and found they didn’t do anything wrong.

Well, alrighty then!

Are we talking about Georgia, one of the United States, or about Georgia, the country, located between Russia and Turkey, that seceded from the Soviet Union in 1991?

Now I come across an article from “fake news” CNN, by one of Hillary’s and Obama’s BFFs, David Axelrod, who praises “The courage of Brad Raffensperger!”

Oh, yes…, Brad is sooo courageous.  

This ought to be good.

David Axelrod, a senior CNN political commentator, was senior adviser to President Barack Obama and chief strategist for the 2008 and 2012 Obama presidential campaigns.

According to Axelrod, “The hour-long recording of the President of the United States, defeated and desperate, begging Georgia’s secretary of state over the phone to ‘find’ him enough votes to overturn the election results there was appalling.”

As appalling as secretly recording The President’s phone conversation, without his knowledge, and then releasing it to the “liberal propaganda” media?

“After four years of Donald Trump’s blatant assault on democratic institutions rules, norms and laws, anyone who is shocked by this latest outrage simply hasn’t been paying attention. It was only a year ago that Trump was impeached for a similar attempt to strong-arm the president of Ukraine.”

“DONALD TRUMP’S BLATANT ASSAULT ON DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You say that, “…anyone who is shocked by this latest outrage simply hasn’t been paying attention.”

On the contrary…, the democrats are counting on people not paying attention, and helping them to not pay attention!

Otherwise more people would be aware of the “blatant assault” on President Trump by first the Obama administration, then the DOJ and the FBI, and then the corrupt and anti-American democrat leadership, along with most of the media in this country!

Just sayin’.

Axelrod continues, “No, what was remarkable about the whole, surreal and sordid conversation was not Trump’s recycling of debunked [No, just denied, out of hand, actually.] conspiracy theories nor his insistent claim, against all evidence [Evidence that we aren’t allowed to actually see, of course], that he had won the state by ‘hundreds of thousands of votes.’”

“It wasn’t hearing the President sounding like a mafia don.”

And Axelrod would know what a mafia don sounds like because…?

“It was the calm and steadfast way Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his attorney, Ryan Germany, firmly rebuffed him.”

Well, they did have the advantage of knowing the call was being recorded, after all.

“After patiently listening to and rebutting each of Trump’s bizarre diatribes [All of which are well documented and supported by witnesses, by the way.] about supposedly rigged machines, dead voters, shredded ballots and other social media-driven drivel, Raffensperger cut to the chase:”

‘“Well, Mr. President,’ he said, in even tones, ‘the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong.’”

“It’s a safe bet that Raffensperger, a Republican [A RINO, actually] who supported Trump [just so he could get elected], would have much preferred that Joe Biden had lost Georgia [Well, obviously not.]. Raffensperger might then have avoided Trump’s wrath and the political and personal threats he has endured.”

What threats exactly did The President make?  I only heard him make requests.

Requests from The President that Raffensperger treat him fairly and insure that election laws were being followed?   

‘“They don’t want to vote [referring to Georgian Trump supporters],’ Trump told Raffensperger, who will be up for reelection in 2022. ‘They hate the state, they hate the governor, and they hate the secretary of state. I will tell you that right now. The only people that like you are people that will never vote for you [Georgia democrats]. You know that, Brad, right?’”

‘“It is more illegal for you than it is for them [the cheating democrats] because, you know, what they did and you’re not reporting it,’ the President said. ‘That’s criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer…that’s a big risk.’”

That’s a threat?

That sounds more like The President offering sound and truthful advice more than anything.

“In his book ‘Profiles in Courage,’ former President John F. Kennedy described rare acts of political courage, in which politicians placed duty and conscience ahead of public opinion or their own political well-being.”

This is the definition of President Trump, actually, Axelrod, but you predictably choose to shine you light on Raffensperger instead.  

“By standing up for the integrity of the election despite Trump’s shameless pressure, Raffensperger has proven himself, in America’s moment of trial, to be an admirable exception. He has shown courage.”

“By standing up for the integrity of the election,” of course you mean “standing up for the MANIPULATION of the election.”

“Voters may not reward him for it, but history will.”

Only the twisted, liberal propaganda, version of history will remember Brad “Benedict Arnold” Reffensperger in any kind of a positive light.

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.

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 117th Congress, on January 3rd.

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. 

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.

A “rabbit hole?”

“Rabbit hole” appears to be the latest liberal buzzword(s).

If you listen to any democrat politician or the mainstream talk about questions surrounding possible election fraud, the term “rabbit hole” will undoubtedly surface before too long.

It seems they all got the memo.

So, what are they referring to? 

From Yourdictionary.com, “Something that is intricate or convoluted like a labyrinth and often has no outlet or resolution.  A situation regarded as surreal, bewildering, convoluted, etc.”

From Macmillandictionary.com, “From Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, a famous children’s story by Lewis Carroll in which a girl called Alice falls down a rabbit hole into a strange dreamlike world.”

So, when anyone dares to question the integrity of the 2020 election, in any way, we are deemed to be “going down a rabbit hole.”

This of course is just the democrats’ way of deflecting any concerns about the election, without having to come up with any kind of response to the obvious and documented irregularities.

A true use of the term “going down a rabbit hole” could best be applied when referring to the democrats’ claims of “Russian collusion” or their pursuit of the impeachment of President Trump. These were true trips into a “surreal,” or a “strange dreamlike world.”   

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.

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.  

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.

UPDATE#5: Remember the Alamo! (Monday, 12/14/20).

Late Friday night, The United States Supreme Court elected to not even hear the Texas election lawsuit.

Even though the lawsuit was backed by The President, 18 states, and over 100 members of Congress, The United States Supreme Court felt this would be a waste of their time to even hear the arguments is the case.

I was personally shocked by their decision which, I believe, will go down in history as one of he most shameful decisions ever rendered by a United States Supreme Court.

CBS News reports that, “In a tweet overnight, Mr. [President] Trump said, ‘The Supreme Court really let us down. No Wisdom, No Courage!’ after the court’s 7-2 ruling rejected a push from Texas to block electors in four battleground states from voting in the Electoral College.”

For the record…,  

The seven justices who rejected the case are:

John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States,

Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice,

Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice,

Elena Kagan, Associate Justice,

Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice,

Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice,

Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice.

The two justices who felt the case was worth hearing are:

Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice,

Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice.

None of the three Justices appointed by President Trump: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, nor Amy Coney Barrett, opted to defend The President. 

I’m sure the liberal justices would have acted the same way if this had been a challenge supporting former President Obama.

NOT!  

“The decision effectively ends The President’s five-week effort to legally challenge President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.”

“In rejecting the lawsuit, the court wrote that ‘Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.’”

So, The Supreme Court of The United States is saying that Texas, and all of the other states that joined in the lawsuit, somehow has no interest if other states don’t follow Constitutional law, allow their election to be compromised by cheating, and thus allow an illegitimate winner to be installed as President of the United States?

Really?

“The four states — Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Wisconsin — all went to Mr. Biden.”

“The lawsuit filed Monday by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asked the court to invalidate the four key states’ votes, but judges across the country have repeatedly tossed out those claims due to a lack of evidence.”

“Lack of evidence?!”

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence, if any of these courts would care to look at it.

“Over 100 House Republicans filed a brief in support of Paxton’s suit claiming the election was riddled with allegations of fraud and irregularities.”

“Mr. [President] Trump had been counting on a Supreme Court victory. Three of the seven justices who rejected the case were Justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett — all his own appointees.”

Yes…, and shame on all of you.

Gorsuch

Kavanaugh

Barrett

“Earlier in the week, the president struck an optimistic tone at a White House Hanukkah party.”

“In a video posted to Twitter, he said: ‘I understand a lot of congressmen and women have joined in, a lot of people are joining in because they can’t allow this to happen.’”

‘“You can’t have a country where somebody loses an election and becomes president,’ Mr. Trump continued.”

The Supreme Court obviously doesn’t feel there is a problem with that.

“Paxton released a statement calling the court’s decision ‘unfortunate,’ asserting he ‘will continue to tirelessly defend the integrity and security of our elections and hold accountable those who shirk established election law for their own convenience.’”

“Unfortunate” is the very, very, very least that can be said to describe this turn of events.  

“The President’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani joined ‘Hannity’ on Fox News Friday evening, and said the Supreme Court’s decision was wrong.”

‘“The Supreme Court has made a terrible, terrible mistake in not getting this resolved in a fair, in a decent and in an equitable way,’ Giuliani said. ‘Because it’s gonna leave a real black mark with regard to this election throughout our entire history.’”

Well said, Rudy, and I absolutely agree.

Additionally, according to National Public Radio (NPR), “The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday night rejected an eleventh hour challenge to Joe Biden’s election as president.”

“The court’s action came in a one-page order, which said the complaint was denied ‘for lack of standing.’”

“Texas, supported by President Trump, tried to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan, claiming fraud, without evidence.”

Again, since when aren’t signed affidavits evidence?   

“But in order for a state to bring a case in court, especially the Supreme Court, a state must show it has been injured. In essence, the court said Texas could not show that it was injured by the way other states conducted their elections.”

I believe Texas demonstrated quite clearly how it believed it had been injured.

According to the Morris Bart, LLC Law firm website, regarding “standing to sue,” “When a party files a lawsuit there are many things he or she must prove besides just the facts of the case. One of these legal concepts is known in Latin as ‘locus standi,’ in other words, ‘standing to sue.’ Here is the essential breakdown of this principle and how it might affect your legal rights.”

“What does it mean to have ‘standing’ in court? In layman’s terms, legal standing to sue is about who has the right to bring an action in court, not about the issues or facts of the actual case. Under Article III of the Constitution, courts can only hear actual ‘cases’ or ‘controversies,’ so standing law helps enforce this requirement by requiring that the party filing sue suffer an injury caused by the other party that can actually be addressed by the court.”

“It’s important to note that because standing law is established by the US Constitution, these requirements only apply to federal court lawsuits. For state standing requirements, you would look to state law.”

“What are the three elements of standing to sue?”

“In the legal world, ‘element’ is another word for a factor that the party must prove as part of a broader legal concept. In terms of standing, a party must prove three elements.”

“INJURY IN FACT means that a person has suffered an actual injury. This can be a physical injury or economic loss, the two most common types of injuries. However, this element can also include harm that is caused to conservation, aesthetic, or recreational interests as well. Importantly, in most cases, the injury must already have occurred, rather than being something hypothetical that might happen in the future.”

“CAUSATION means that the injury to the plaintiff was caused by the person or party that is being sued. In other words, the party bringing the lawsuit needs to show that “but for” the defendant’s action or inaction, they would not have been injured. If the plaintiff cannot prove a connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury, they will not be able to prove that they have standing to bring the lawsuit.”

“Finally, REDRESSABILITY means that the court will actually be capable of doing something to correct or make up for the plaintiff’s injury. This can mean ordering the defendant to undo what it has done, or if that isn’t possible, imposing penalties or fines that would have a deterrent effect. It’s important to remember that the court’s jurisdiction does not extend outside of the United States, and courts can only order parties to take certain actions, so there is a limit on whether a court’s order can “redress” the injury the plaintiff has suffered.”

“When interpreting these standards, courts have also added other rules, often called ‘prudential standing,’ to help them consistently apply standing law. These rules include limits on when taxpayers can sue for grievances that affect the general public, and the requirement that the injury be within the ‘zone of interest’ a statute is intended to cover, among many others.”

“Why do courts require standing for a lawsuit to proceed?  At the most basic level, courts require standing because the Constitution requires them to enforce the law. However, there are many policy reasons that courts require legal standing. Because of the requirement that federal courts only hear actual ‘cases or controversies,’ these requirements prevent courts from litigating abstract political questions that have public significance, but have not actually yet harmed anyone. This means that courts can use their time and efforts only on those cases where they can have an actual impact.”

This is why we get jokes like:

What do you call a busload of lawyers driving over a cliff?

A good start.

In my opinion, these justices were just looking for an excuse to not get involved. 

When over 75 million voters feel like they’ve been “injured,” I’d say that is something worth addressing.

Our country was looking to them to help pull us out of the fire, and they just turned their backs on law-abiding American citizens, and our country in general.  

Thanks for nothing Supreme Court.

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.

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.     

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.

UPDATE#2: Remember the Alamo! (12/10/20).

Let’s get this party started!

It looks like everyone wants to get in on the fun now.

According to the CBSDFW.com Staff (The Dallas/Fort Worth CBS local affiliate), “Eighteen states — now including Arizona — have joined a Texas lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. That lawsuit was filed directly with the United States Supreme Court on Monday, Dec. 7.”

Eighteen states!!!

That’s over a third of the United States!

“The suit asks the court to order the ‘defendant states’ legislatures to displace ‘tainted’ election results in those states and choose their own slate of electors.”

“Paxton sued battleground states on behalf of the state of Texas saying the ‘defendant states’ made unconstitutional changes to their laws before the 2020 election.”

“He said those states tainted the integrity of the vote for Texas and all states.”

“An amicus brief (amicus curiae) or ‘friend of the court’ brief was filed with the high court earlier Wednesday. The states of Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia have all signed on to the brief that backs the Texas suit.”

“Arizona was the latest state to file an amicus brief on Wednesday bringing the total to 18 states.”

Thank you, thank you, thank you, to all of these other states which have chosen to stand up for justice and stand up for America.

“According to the American Bar Association, ‘Friend of the court’ or amicus curiae briefs are often filed in appellate cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Court and state supreme courts, as well as intermediate courts of appeal. And there is considerable evidence that amicus briefs have influence.”

“On Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court ordered the defendant states to reply by 3 p.m. on Thursday, Dec. 10.”

‘“It’s not unusual,’ SMU [Southern Methodist University] Constitutional Law Professor Dale Carpenter told CBS 11. ‘I don’t think it indicates anything very important… I think the court will act quickly on Thursday.’”

‘“The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,’ said Paxton. ‘Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.’”

‘“Ken Paxton is asking that Republican state legislatures in four states be allowed to displace the will of the voters in those States and choose their own slate of electors, presumably to hand the election to Donald Trump in January,’ said [Professor] Carpenter. ‘The Supreme Court is not going to allow that to happen.’”

Nice try professor!

“Displace the will of the voters?!!!

You mean “displace the will” of the cheaters?

That’s the whole point here, Professor!  Tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of fraudulent and illegal votes in these 4 defendant states displaces the actual will of legal voters, who submitted legal ballots in the 4 defendant states and every other state in the union.

Excuse me…, but you are such a “tool” and such a “useful idiot,” Professor Carpenter.

I have also heard that President Trump and his legal team have officially signed on to the lawsuit, and that they have asked Senator Ted Cruz of Texas to represent them all and plead the case in the Supreme Court.

Today may end up being a VERY big day in the history of United States and a big day for the future of these United States.

I’ll keep you posted.     

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.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑