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

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

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

So, who is this guy?

First off, he’s a lawyer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He rejoined Kirkland and Ellis in 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh…, c’mon!

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

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

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

Just sayin’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ll keep you posted.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

bill barr

 

 

 

 

Miracles do happen!

Scientists and doctors don’t know it all.  Not even close.

Many times they give us all the impression that they do, but “they don’t know what they don’t know.”

Sh*t happens.  Miracles happen…, every day and all of the time.

Here are just a couple of recent examples:

T. Scott Marr suffered a stroke on December 12, 2018.  His son, Drew, found his father unresponsive, but still breathing, in his bed.  He was rushed to the Hospital and placed on a breathing machine in intensive care.

The doctors there were worried that his case had led to an irreversible process, leading to brain death.

Mr. Marr’s children decided to pull the plug after he was officially declared brain dead. They all said their final good-byes and were preparing his funeral services.

But God apparently had a different plan for Mr. Marr.  After being unconscious for two days, and having his breathing tubes pulled out, he unexpectedly woke up after his doctors thought there was no hope of recovery.

“Each time we would leave the hospital, we would kind of say our final goodbyes,” his daughter, Preston, told Fox News. “We thought we would never hear his voice again, see him open his eyes, and see who we were.”

But all that changed after the plug was pulled.  Preston was the first to see him begin to miraculously respond.

“It was surreal and my heart is beating out of my chest just thinking about it again,” she said, “I keep replaying it in my head of him lying in his hospital bed, then smiling, and then moving his thumbs and then wiggling his toes, and then saying ‘I love you.’”

Now, he’s recovering at home after weeks of therapy at an Omaha, Nebraska, hospital, and says his miraculous recovery after being declared brain dead is “proof” of God.

“This whole thing has been a miracle from God,” Mr. Marr told local television station KMTV. “I did not die. I didn’t have to die. I’m back here, and I hope to give people some comfort and hope that if they are, in fact, going through anything like that, that it’s a safe place.”

In the two days Marr was unconscious, he said he had what some might call a “near-death experience.”  He saw his late father walking along the street.

“He said, ‘What are you doing here?’ And I said I’m looking to work and he said, ‘There’s no work here, you better get your butt home,’” Marr told local reporters.

Marr says the entire process strengthened what little faith he had.

“I’m not an extremely religious person. I don’t go to church every Sunday,” Marr told the World-Herald. “But I do believe in God.  I believe with all my heart.  And now this is just proof for me that everything I’ve ever heard is true.  That he loves me.  That he’s right there for me.  It was pretty much a miracle.”

miracles

A Michigan woman also miraculously started breathing after her “plug was pulled” and she was taken off of life support.

In August of 2018, Michele DeLeeuw was having a heart attack when her husband Karl dialed 911.  She wasn’t breathing and he didn’t know CPR.

“I think she just died.  Hang on please,” he said to the 911 operator.

The operator managed to coach Karl through CPR, which gave his wife at least a chance at survival.

Michelle remained unconscious for three weeks after her arrival at the hospital…, that was until just after the plug on her life support was pulled.

Just moments after the Sterling Heights, Michigan man made the heart-wrenching decision to take his apparently brain-dead wife off life support…, she started breathing.  Nearly four months later and against all odds, she is home making a full recovery.

Karl DeLeeuw believes his wife, Michele, is a living miracle.

“I just thank God that I was saved,” she told the local news. “I was spared.  I know [this] means something.  Something good is going to come out of this.”

Miracles do happen.

Believe it.

Expect miracles in your life, and God will make them happen…, if that is His will.  None of us knows what God’s plans are for us.  Just know that God can make anything happen at any time.

Believe it.

The worst thing we can do is just accept a fate given to us by anyone other than God.

 

Thank you to Caleb Parke, an associate editor for FoxNews.com and The Associated Press for contributing to this article.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

miracles (1)

This CNN analyst’s level of confusion is quite impressive!

CNN legal “analyst,” Areva Martin, called out a Fox News contributor for his “white privilege” while talking to him recently on his SiriusXM radio show.

The only problem with that is he’s a black man!

David Webb, a radio host on SiriusXM and a frequent Fox News contributor, is black.

When Webb, who is a Fox Nation host and frequent Fox News contributor, said he considered his qualifications more important than his skin color when applying to media jobs, Ms. Martin (who is a black woman) accused him of exercising white privilege.

“Areva, I hate to break it to you, but you should’ve been better prepped,” he responded. “I’m black.”

In the actual interview, David Webb says, “I’ve chosen to cross different parts of the media world, done the work so that I’m qualified to be in each one; I never considered my color the issue; I considered my qualifications the issue.”

Areva Martin then responds: “Well, David, that’s a whole other long conversation about white privilege, the things that you have the privilege of doing, that people of color don’t have the privilege of.”

“How do I have the privilege of white privilege?” Webb asks.

“David, by virtue of being a white male you have white privilege. This whole long conversation, I don’t have time to get into …”

Webb then interrupts her to let her know he’s a black man, causing Martin to take a pause.

“You see, you went to white privilege; this is the falsehood in this,” Webb replies. “You went immediately with an assumption. Your people, obviously, or you didn’t look.”

Ms. Martin the proceeds to apologize repeatedly for her false accusation, adding that “her people” gave her the wrong information.

So Ms. Martin is saying that she just blindly regurgitates whatever “her people” feed her?

Is this what we are referring to when we talk about “talking heads?”

Ms. Martin should be woman enough to accept the criticism here and not throw “her people” “under the bus,” but in typical liberal fashion, nothing is ever her fault it’s always the fault of someone else.

“You’re talking to a black man . . . who started out in rock radio in Boston, who crossed the paths into hip-hop, rebuilding one of the greatest black stations in America and went on to work at Fox News where I’m told apparently blacks aren’t supposed to work, but yet, you come with this assumption, and you go to white privilege,” Webb says. “That’s actually insulting.”

According to Michael Brice-Saddler for the Washington Post, “Martin has not publicly acknowledged the incident, and a spokeswoman for Areva Martin declined to comment.”

“After the interview, Webb made light of Martin’s gaffe by posting photos of himself with white men, writing on Twitter: ‘Just two guys showing their #WhitePrivelege.’ pic.twitter.com/mXWv47dTTX

— David Webb (@davidwebbshow) January 15, 2019”

Brice-Saddler continues by saying, “The exchange became a popular topic on Fox News, where Tucker Carlson discussed it Tuesday night, shortly before Webb appeared on “The Ingraham Angle.” The following morning, he was back on Fox to discuss the incident with “Fox and Friends,” telling the hosts that white privilege is a “false narrative.”

“‘There is no such thing as white privilege,’ Webb said. ‘There’s earned privilege in life that you work for. There are those who may have a form of privilege that they exert . . . in the form of influence.’”

“If a conservative analyst had made the same mistake as Martin, there would be calls for that person to be fired, Webb said.”

“He said he has invited Martin back to his show to ‘have a longer conversation about white privilege.’”

“‘Our skin’s an organ, it doesn’t think or formulate ideas, it just says: This is a result of your parentage,’ he said.”

“‘She got caught,’ he said of Martin, but added: ‘I have no reason to “diss” her.’”

You may not want to “diss” her Mr. Webb, but I will!

For your information Ms. Areva Martin, racism can cut both ways.  Just because you are black and/or a liberal does not mean you get a free pass to say ignorant things or racist things and get away with them.  I know you’re used to getting away with stuff like this on CNN or MSNBC, but you better be prepared and on your game when talking to conservative talk show hosts or when appearing on Fox News.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

areva martin and david webb

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The good guys 1, fake news 0.

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

Let’s get a few things clear here:

One, there was no real “independent panel.”

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

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

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

No kidding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

da rather fake news

Well, I guess we can add Senator Ted Kennedy to the list of treasonous liberals!

Watching “Life, Liberty and Levin” the other night, a TV show hosted by (The Great One) Mark Levin, I was floored by a letter his guest, Paul Kengor, discussed.

Paul Kengor is a political science professor at Grove City College, and the author of the book, “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism,” among others.

According to Sheila Fitzpatrick of the Wiley Online Library, “The opening of formerly closed and classified archives following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was a remarkable experience for historians…, our data base abruptly expanded in a quantum leap…”

This is how a KGB letter, dated May 14, 1983, written at the height of the Cold War, from the head of the KGB Viktor Chebrikov to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party, came to light.

Here is the translated letter:

Special Importance Committee on State Security of the USSR

14.05.1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV Moscow

Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party, Comrade Y.V. Andropov

Comrade Y.V. Andropov,

On 9-10 of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow.  The Senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.  Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous.  The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.  According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics.  He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity.  For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline.  The White House has portrayed this in the media as the “success of Reaganomics.”

Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan.  A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA.  This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic Party.  Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.

The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations.  These issues, according to the Senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.

The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States.  The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth.  In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistance to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.

However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak.  Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective.  Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda.  In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandstand, but subjectively propagandistic.  At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted.  Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.  Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people.  In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:

  1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues. If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit. Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V. Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield.  Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and published a book on the theme as well.)
  2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.

If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews.  Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow.  The Senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.

Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized.  They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military terms. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.  Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world.  Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutual understandings between peoples.

The Senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.

Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises.  Tunney remarked that the Senator wants to run for president in 1988.  At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future).

Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.

We await instructions.

President of the committee,

Viktor Chebrikov

 

Well what do you think about that?

Again…, can you imagine a letter like this being unearthed that implicated a Republican, and the blood bath that would ensue?

It’s so obvious that the “biased, liberal, fake news media” has been “running interference” for democrats for the last 60+ years now, and it continues today.

It sure sounds to me like Senator Kennedy wants to conspire with the Russian leader against the President of the United States at the time, Ronald Reagan.

I don’t know how you call this anything less than treason.

Kevin Mooney, a staff writer for Crosswalk.com at the time, seems to agree with me.  In October of 2006, he wrote, “A KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan’s foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.”

In his letter, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov offered the USSR General Secretary Yuri Andropov his interpretation of Kennedy’s offer.  Former U.S. Senator John Tunney, a democrat from California, and Kennedy’s law school roommate at the University of Virginia, had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov and other Soviet officials, Professor Kengor claimed in his book.

At one point after President Reagan left office, Tunney acknowledged that he had played the role of intermediary.  Tunney later told the London Times that he had made 15 separate trips to Moscow!

Kennedy’s attempt to partner with high-level Soviet officials never materialized, at least as far as we know.  Yuri Andropov died less than eight months receiving the letter about Kennedy from his KGB head, and it is not clear if the Soviet Communist Party chief ever acted on the Democrat senator’s proposal.  Andropov was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev.

“There’s a lot more to be found here,” Professor Kengor told Cybercast News Service. “This was a shocking revelation.”

Kevin Mooney, later an author at “The Daily Signal,” wrote in 2016, “Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy had “selfish political and ideological motives” when he made secret overtures to the Soviet Union’s spy agency during the Cold War to thwart then-President Ronald Reagan’s re-election…”

“In the 1980s, Kennedy was ‘terribly misguided’ and ‘a fool’ for seeing Reagan as a greater threat than either the leader of the Soviet Union or the head of its brutal secret police and intelligence agency,” political science professor and writer Paul Kengor told The Daily Signal.  “But what is clear from history is that Russian agents have worked with “dupes” such as Kennedy and other “naïve” Americans to influence U.S. policy to serve their own ends.”

So, what is the point of this article?

Here’s the point:

President Trump has been under a daily attack, for the better part of two years, from the “biased, liberal, fake news media” regarding some uncorroborated claims of collusion between President Trump and Russia.

In the case of Senator Kennedy, we have an actual letter describing his desires to conspire with a foreign government, and the “biased, liberal, fake news media” chose to, and chooses to, look the other way.

That’s the point.

Whose side are these guys on anyway?

Whoever’s side it is, it’s not “We the People’s” side, that’s for sure.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

ted kennedy

 

For all of those liberals living in denial…, well here you go, straight from the horse’s…, uh, I mean the editor’s mouth!

Jill Abramson, a veteran journalist in her own right, and the former executive editor at The New York Times newspaper from 2011 to 2014, says “The Times” has a financial incentive to bash the president and that the imbalance is helping to erode its credibility.  She added that, the paper’s “news” pages have become “unmistakably anti-Trump.”

Please go on Ms. Abramson, but tell us something we don’t already know.

Being the executive editor for four years during President Obama’s tenure was obviously a pretty boring time at “The Times.”  The “biased, liberal, fake news media” wasn’t interested in any hard hitting investigative “journalism” concerning President Obama or his administration.  There were no daily attacks of President Obama, the first lady, or his family. There was only properly spun propaganda or propaganda by omission.

I’m sure “The Times,” version 2017-2018, looks and sounds quite different today compared to the paper she left four years ago.

I do wonder, however, what she is referring to when she says “The Times has a financial incentive to bash the president….” What “financial incentive” exactly do they receive for bashing the president, and from whom?

This definitely does not sound like something a “fair and balanced” news source would practice.  Does it?  Fair minded people of course would say “no,” but how do my liberal friends respond to this?  I’m just wondering, and I hope they give me some feedback.

I can’t see any possible justification for this behavior unless you’re okay with a major media outlet being a propaganda tool for any ideology or political party, while claiming to be objective.

According to Howard Kurtz, of Fox News, for Media Buzz, “In a soon-to-be published book, ‘Merchants of Truth,’ that casts a skeptical eye on the news business, Abramson defends the Times in some ways but offers some harsh words for her successor, Dean Baquet.  And Abramson, who was the paper’s only female executive editor until her firing, invoked Steve Bannon’s slam that in the Trump era the mainstream media have become the “opposition party.”

‘“Though Baquet said publicly he didn’t want the Times to be the opposition party, his news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump,’ Abramson writes, adding that she believes the same is true of the Washington Post. ‘Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis.’”

“Abramson describes a generational split at the Times, with younger staffers, many of them in digital jobs, favoring an unrestrained assault on the presidency. ‘The more “woke” staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards,’ she writes.”

President Trump routinely claims that he “is keeping the failing New York Times in business.”  Some would say this is an exaggeration, but the former editor acknowledges a “Trump bump” that saw digital subscriptions during his first six months in office jump by 600,000, to more than 2 million.

I would call that quite significant!

‘“Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative…,’ Abramson added.”

When her boss, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. decided to let her go, he called her in, fired her, and handed her a press release announcing her resignation.

Abramson says she replied, “Arthur, I’ve devoted my entire career to telling the truth, and I won’t agree to this press release.  I’m going to say I’ve been fired.”

Just one more attempt at “fake news” I guess!

Of course the rest of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” claim that a result of losing her job she is now being vindictive and making false claims against The New York Times.

It’s funny, but I never hear “the biased, liberal, fake news media” claiming that former Trump appointees or employees are acting in a vindictive manner or making false claims against him.

Just sayin’.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

nytimes-fake_news-all_the_news

 

Brilliant!  CNN’s Jim Acosta makes President Trump’s case for him without even realizing it!

“I found some steel slats down on the border. But I don’t see anything resembling a national emergency situation.. at least not in the McAllen TX area of the border where Trump will be today. pic.twitter.com/KRoLdszLUu”

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) January 10, 2019

Ian Schwartz of RealClear Politics reported that, “White House officials and Trump supporters on Twitter roundly mocked CNN White House reporter Jim Acosta after he filmed himself taking a walk along a border barrier he called “tranquil” and claiming there was “no national emergency.”

Per Jim Acosta’s CNN broadcast:

“Here’s some of the steel slats that the president has been talking about,” Acosta said as he grabbed a bar. “As you can see, yes, you can see through these slats to the other side of the U.S.-Mexico border.”

“But as I am walking along here we’re not seeing any kind of imminent danger,” Acosta reported as he walked against the barrier. “There are no migrants trying to rush toward this fence here in the McAllen, Texas area.”

“As a matter of fact, there are some other businesses behind me along this highway. There’s a gas station, a Burger King and so on,” the intrepid reporter said into the camera.

“No sign of the national emergency that the president has been talking about. As a matter of fact, it’s pretty tranquil down here.”

Acosta then ended his transmission.

Ha!

Not only is Jim Acosta obnoxious, he’s an obnoxious idiot.

Actually, it turns out that he is an obnoxious, useful, idiot!

And that’s the best kind!

I’m sure Mr. Acosta is kicking himself for unwittingly making the President’s point for him.

Let’s see what some others had to say about Jim “I Tawt I Taw a Puddy Tat” Acosta!

“When I went with President @realDonaldTrump to the border today I never imagined @Acosta would be there doing our job for us and so clearly explaining why WALLS WORK. Thanks Jim! https://t.co/7wC4rdEsZ2”

— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) January 10, 2019

 

“I would like to thank @Acosta for pointing out how peaceful, safe and secure it is at a part of the border that HAS a wall. #RealNews #BuildTheWall  https://t.co/bkssL9nOW3”

— Brad Parscale (@parscale) January 10, 2019

 

“A sincere and heartfelt “thank you” to @Acosta and @CNN for finally showing what @POTUS has been saying: barriers work! Great job Jim!!! https://t.co/jZx1NanMgh”

— Hogan Gidley (@hogangidley45) January 10, 2019

 

“Brilliant reporting from CNN’s @Acosta —walls work! Thank you Jim! https://t.co/Ymw9iCgPzx”

— U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (@SenBillCassidy) January 10, 2019

 

“Is it possible Acosta is actually a pro-Trump false flag operating under deep cover in the media? If so, he’s a genius. https://t.co/EvRYGrIQZI”

— Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) January 10, 2019

 

Yes, thank you Jim.

Thank you for your unwitting support.

WINNING!

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

jim acosta at the border

 

Listen to Cher sing her #1 hit, “Do You Believe in Life After Liberalism!?”  

Why anyone cares what Cher has to say is beyond me, but in the liberals’ world it seems she is considered a wise old sage, ala Barbra Streisand, Bette Midler, and Whoopi Goldberg.

In this instance, Cher has demanded that Nancy Pelosi end this partial government shutdown and fund the border wall, tweeting to Nancy, “DON’T DIE ON THIS HILL.”

Maybe I need to reconsider my thoughts on Cher!

Cher has also admitted that she felt she went “too far” with her latest criticisms of President Trump (Whaaat?!), although she’s not exactly sorry for calling him a “cancer ravaging our nation (That sounds more like the Cher I know and love!).”

“I Say What I feel, But There’s a Responsibility That Goes With That,” the 71-year-old singer and actress tweeted. “I Walk Knifes Edge, But Sometimes It’s Too far. This Is Not An Apology….Its a Reprimand.”

She continued, “Just Because I CAN SAY ANYTHING…Doesn’t Mean I SHOULD. Sometimes I Learn The Hard Way, Over & Over. Humans are Fallible.”

Cher’s semi-apology came shortly after she described Trump as a “malignant tumor eating its way through our constitution” in a since-deleted tweet, according to Breitbart News Network.  The news site also reported that Cher called President Trump a “criminal,” a “sociopath” and a “despot.”

According to Fox News, “This is hardly the first time Cher has lashed out against Trump and members of his administration.”

“At an August 2016 Hillary Clinton fundraiser, the singer compared Trump to Hitler and told reporters that Trump was ‘a racist, he’s a misogynist, he’s a horrible person.’”

“She took to Twitter in January to express her sentiments about White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders’ style and shamed her for her everyday wear.”

Cher’s tweet read, “Would someone please tell Sarah Huckabee Sanders to stop dressing like a sister wife?”

“The singer illustrated her tweet with an image of two women in stereotypical clothing.  In the photo the women also sport braids, plain lace-up shoes and high-neck dresses with long sleeves and puffy shoulders.”

After President Trump delivered a prime-time address from the Oval Office making the case for funding the border wall, which was followed by a response from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who argued that the president must reopen the government in order to continue conversations about border security, Cher took to Twitter to blast the president for promising that Mexico would pay for the wall and demanded him to end the government shutdown.

The next day, however, she called out Pelosi: “NANCY YOU ARE A HERO. LET (Trump) HAVE HIS FKNG MONEY. PPL WILL STARVE LOSE THEIR HOMES, B UNABLE 2 C DRS.”

Cher then demanded Democrats to “stop” the shutdown before Trump does: “HELL B HERO… HE’LL EAT UR LUNCH & STEAL UR LUNCH YOU’LL B FKD 6 WAYS 2 SUNDAY.DONT DIE ON THIS HILL. HE STOPS AT NOTHING.”

I’m sorry Nancy, but I feel that I have to go along with Cher on this one.  You need to let President Trump have the money for the wall.

“If I could turn back time…,” I’d vote for Donald Trump all over again!

Winning!

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

cher turn back time

Is it Nancy (the sky is falling) Pelosi and (Up) Chuck Schumer…, or maybe “Mork and Mindy?”  How about “Beavis and Butthead?”

Andrea Park of “W” for Yahoo Politics reported that, “Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) crowded around one podium to offer the Democrat Party’s rebuttal to President Donald Trump’s prime-time address concerning the government shutdown and his proposed border wall.”

“Wherever you land on the political spectrum, there’s no denying that Schumer and Pelosi’s stern rebuttal to Trump channeled the feeling of two parents standing side by side and chastising their trouble-making teen, a comparison that was made many times over in the flood of memes the Democrat response sparked online.”

Again, a “meme” is a humorous image that is copied (often with slight variations or enhancements) and spread rapidly by Internet users.

schumer pelosi

“Elsewhere in this deluge were approximately one billion tweets [ONE BILLION tweets!], likening the disapproving duo to Grant Wood’s 1930 artwork “American Gothic,” as well as only slightly less repetitive comparisons to The Scooby-Doo Show villains, Madame Tussauds’s wax figures, those ubiquitous AAG reverse mortgage commercials, and SNL’s Bobbie and Marty Culp.  Pelosi and Schumer were also offered up as prospective Oscars hosts, …as the Fiji Water girl from the Golden Globes somehow snuck into the background of their speech.”

schumer and pelosi

It was funny that someone apparently thought it was a good idea for the two of them to squeeze behind the same podium.  And you couldn’t tell they were reading from a teleprompter at all!!!

Their partnership will go down in history, no doubt, right alongside Sonny and Cher, Archie and Edith, Herman and Lilly, Al and Peggy and Lucy and Desi.

“Nancy…, you got some ‘splainin’ to do!”

“Oh, Chuckie!”

You really can’t make this stuff up.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

pelosi schumer

 

 

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑