I’m calling out some of these business “experts” and their “trumped-up” (no pun intended) predictions of “doom and gloom” for 2019. 

I’ve been seeing more and more of these “doom and gloom” business “experts,” financial “experts,” and economic “experts” calling for an economic slowdown in 2019, and even a recession in some cases!

The backgrounds of these “doom and gloomers” is across the board, so their motivations for these predictions are all different as well.

“Experts” from the “biased, liberal, fake news media” are of course trying to set-up a self-fulfilling prophecy for their own political benefit; the country be damned.

Some “experts” are just trying to be contrarian in order to stand out.

Some “experts” are just plain confused, and they are over-analyzing the economy in general.

And some “experts” really aren’t experts at all, and they’re just wrong.

Just to name a few, we’ve got Henry Fernandez of Fox Business News claiming, “The US economy will likely fall into a recession next year.”

We’ve got, Charles Schwab’s, Liz Ann Sonders, claiming, “The U.S. economy will likely fall into a recession next year.”

Kevin Kelleher of FORTUNE reminds us that, “2018 has been a banner year for economic growth,” (thank you for stating the obvious Kevin) but that “according to many economists,” “2019 will bring an economic slowdown with a recession possible in 2020.”

Benjamin Fearnow (aptly named) of Newsweek (“Weak News”) says, “CFOs predict 2019 recession, majority expect pre-2020 market crash!”  Mr. Fearnow goes on to say that, “An overwhelming majority of U.S. chief financial officers say the economy will sink into a recession by the end of President Donald Trump’s first term in 2020, and about half say it will happen next year.”

Wow!  So in this case, we’ve doubled down and are going “all in” on an actual “market collapse!” I’d like to see a list of these CFOs that gave their input on this.  I’m not so sure that CFOs (Chief Financial Officers) are the right ones to be getting this information from in the first place.  CFOs typically don’t make company policy, they bookkeep it.

“The end is near for the near-decade-long burst of global economic growth,” said John Graham, a finance professor at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and director of the survey, in a statement. “The U.S. outlook has declined; moreover, the outlook is even worse in many other parts of the world, which will lead to softer demand for U.S. goods.”

The “decade-long burst of global economic growth” referred to here was at the expense of The United States I’m afraid, Mr. Graham, and we weren’t an economic recipient of “that” growth, we subsidized it.

Economist Peter Schiff said that “We won’t be able to call it a recession, it’s going to be worse than the Great Depression…, the U.S. economy is in so much worse shape than it was a decade ago.”

“Worse than the Great Depression?!”  Really Mr. Schiff?  You aren’t any relation to democrat congressman Adam Schiff are you?  Because if you were, that would explain your propensity for the absurd.

“Bloomberg” economics writer, Jeanna Smialek’s chose to go with the headline, “JPMorgan, Bank of America Detect Hints of a U.S. Recession Looming in 2019,” even though her article points out, “Wall Street’s biggest banks are scouring U.S. data for signals of an impending recession.  On balance, they’ve been finding that a 2019 downturn still isn’t likely…”

Ms. Smialek would seem fall into the “Experts from the “biased, liberal, fake news media,” who are trying to set-up a self-fulfilling prophecy for their own political agenda; the country be damned” group.

The resident “experts” on CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC have all, of course, chimed in with their predictions of demise regarding anything Trump related.

This list could go on, but you get the idea I’m sure.

Now, I, admittedly am no economics expert, but I have two eyes, a relatively functional brain, and some common sense.

Here is my take on the U.S.’s economy for 2019 and into 2020.

But first, a little historical perspective.

The economy started to improve immediately in December of 2016 and into 2017 after President Trump was elected, and that was just based on the expectations of the impact of his actions.

The President’s only real actions in 2017 had to do with the reduction of regulations and the signing into law of The Trump tax cut and tax reform plan.  The new law would not begin to offer any real benefits to people or to companies until 2018.

In 2018 individuals were able to keep a little more of their own money due to tax cuts, and business were more easily able to invest their own money in improvements and expansion with drastically reduced capital gains tax penalties.

So in all reality, the United States economy is really only showing the benefits of the new tax laws and some reworked trade policies for about the last six months.

That bring us to 2019.

MrEricksonRules is predicting that 2019 will be an excellent year, economically, for The United States!

2019 will be the year that people see the real benefit of the new tax cuts law.  Families across the country will pay thousands less in taxes and/or get thousands more back.  This can only help stimulate the economy even more in the second and third quarters of 2019.

Although many of these “experts” see President Trumps “tariff wars” as economic negatives, I can only see them being a positive thing for our economy.  I see businesses across the board beginning to reap the benefits of the new USAMC trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, and the same goes especially for the new agreements with China.

Also, as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, and a recent directing Executive Order, President Trump is encouraging long-term investments in low-income urban and rural communities nationwide. The Opportunity Zones program provides a tax incentive for investors, which should also help to stimulate the economy in whole new areas.  It also directs government entities to prioritize these zones for expenditures as well.

2019 will also see record revenues for the federal government, due to the booming economy and the increase in the number of taxpayers overall.  These revenues may help us to avoid increasing the federal deficit and possibly even work on bringing the deficit down.  At this point I would settle for just a slowing of the amount we owe.

So, based on my “expertise,” I would tend to disagree with most of these so-called “experts.”

I would go as far to say that 2020 will just build off of 2019, and that President Trump will be running for re-election having orchestrated the most impressive economic turn around and economic run since Ronald Reagan in the early 80’s.

Larry Kudlow, who is serving as president of the National Economic Council under President Trump, seems to agree with me, when he says,  “In my personal view, our administration’s view, recession is so far in the distance I can’t see it,” Kudlow said. “The basic economy has reawakened and it’s gonna stay there…, I mean, I’m reading some of the weirdest stuff, how a recession is around the corner.  It’s nonsense.”

I think The President would second that notion as well.

Regarding the Stock Market, I believe there is still a lot of value to be had there.  I feel the Market remains undervalued at this point.

Paul Dietrich of FOX Business feels the same way I do.  He goes on to say, “There seems to be a new “fear of the day” knocking down the stock market.  Chinese trade talks, Brexit, government shutdowns, Fed rate hikes, inverted yield curves or Trump’s tweets all seem to be culprits in this conspiracy to drive down the stock market.  None of these issues have any significant impact on the underlying U.S. economy.”

Overall, The Market will continue to bounce up and down, but also maintain its positive general momentum.

Remember, however, that what’s good for Wall Street is not necessarily what’s good for Main Street.

In 2019 and 2020, we’ll take a look back and see how I did versus “the experts.”

If any of the media outlets want to contact me at some point regarding business and economic prospectives, you can do so via the “contact” feature on my blog website.

 

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.

mayan calendar

 

Oh Mika you’re so fine (dumb), you’re so fine (dumb) you blow my mind, hey Mika, hey Mika!  

MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ co-host, Mika Brzezinski, apologized for using a homophobic slur when describing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as a “butt-boy.”

Our “oh so politically correct” Comrade Brzezinski took issue with Pompeo’s recent comments to Fox News regarding Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s involvement in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, according to Fox News’ Brian Flood.

“Why doesn’t Mike Pompeo care right now?” Brzezinski asked. “Are the pathetic deflections that we just heard when he appeared on ‘Fox and Friends,’ is that a patriot speaking, or a wannabe dictator’s butt-boy?  I’m dead serious.  I’m asking, are these the words of a patriot?”

Say what?!

Let me try and put my response in Comrade Brzezinski’s own words.

loe-scarborough-and-mika-brzezinski-msnbc-fox21-ans-sio-rica-25908351

Why doesn’t Mika Brzezinski care right now, I’m asking?  Is the pathetic homophobic slur we just heard when she appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” is that a responsible nation-wide news show host talking, or a wannabe cable news network’s snarky bitch?  I’m dead serious.  I’m asking, are these the words of a responsible nation-wide news show host?

Ya, that about covers it.

Brian Flood goes on to say that, “A viewer took to Twitter, calling the remark ‘as homophobic a term as I’ve heard on national morning television,’ noting that MSNBC did not include the slur in its closed captioning. ‘Maybe don’t equate homosexuality with Mike Pompeo carrying water for the murderous regime in Saudi Arabia,’ the viewer wrote.”

Brzezinski agreed (How could she not?) and quoted the tweet while offering an apology.  She also apologized to Senator Dick Durbin, who was on set at the time.

“SUPER BAD choice of words,” she wrote. “I should have said ‘water boy’… like for football teams or something like that… apologize to @SenatorDurbin too! SO SORRY!”

You know what Mika?  You sit there every morning with your little “butt-boy” (your words not mine) Joe Scarborough, with your “holier than thou” and your “more PC than thou” attitude, and then you spout out this kind of stuff?

double-standards_new

You batter President Trump on a daily basis, calling him a racist, a misogynist, an islamaphobe and a homophobe, but you’re the one actually saying this stuff.

Of course according to you, in your case, it’s just a “super bad choice of words.”

Actually it’s not.  Actually it’s a glimpse into your true persona.

“If it was a Conservative that said what ‘crazed’ Mika Brzezinski stated on her show yesterday, using a certain horrible term, that person would be banned permanently from television,” President Trump tweeted.  “She will probably be given a pass, despite their terrible ratings.”

According to Brian Flood, “MSNBC did not immediately respond when asked if the network condones or plans to do anything about Brzezinski’s comment.”

Of course, Comrade Brzezinski isn’t the first MSNBC star to make homophobic remarks.

We also have sista’ Joy Reid who claimed hateful and anti-gay rhetoric on her blog was planted by “diabolical hackers,” a claim that quickly fell apart.  Reid had even said she reported the hacking “crime” to the FBI. She eventually “kinda-sorta” admitted writing homophobic slurs.

So technically, we’d have to identify her as a lying homophobe, not just a homophobe.

“Back in April, Reid got emotional on the air and admitted it seemed unlikely she was hacked, but that she didn’t recall making the offensive remarks, for which she apologized anyway,” Flood added.

“I genuinely do not believe I wrote those hateful things,” Reid told her viewers (all 3 of them), adding, “The person I am now is not the person I was then.”

Joy Reid displays the typical level of liberal confusion, shared by many of her “biased, fake news media” cohorts.  She is in self-denial and unable to hold herself accountable for her own words while crucifying others for their words.

MSNBC has stood by sista’ Reid and she continues to host a show on the network.

“The only thing worse than a liar is a liar that’s also a hypocrite!” – Tennessee Williams

detecting-high-levels-of-liberal-hypocrisy-in-this-sector-captain

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.

 

The KGB…, oops, I mean the FBI is at it again!

Apparently “the swamp” runs pretty deep over at the good ol’ FBI.

Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, and current Chairman of The Senate Judiciary Committee, wants answers about an FBI raid conducted on a “whistleblower,” who apparently had information on Hillary Clinton, The Clinton Foundation and “Uranium One.”

Please refer to my previous blog on January 5, 2018, “Grand Theft Uranium,” “Oh what a tangled, and radioactive, web they weave!” for a little more background on this subject.

“Uranium One” is [was] a Canadian mining company whose sale to a Russian firm was approved in 2010. The U.S. government was involved because the sale gave the Russians control of part [approximately 15%] of the U.S. uranium supply [uranium of course being necessary to produce nuclear energy or nuclear weapons]. The transaction has faced renewed scrutiny after “The Hill” reported last year that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S.

Sen. Grassley has written to FBI Director Christopher Wray and the Justice Department’s internal watchdog (a government “watchdog” is a group or individual within an organization charged with self-policing against illegal or unethical conduct) to request information about the raid on the home of a former FBI contractor, Dennis Cain, who gave the watchdog documents related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to a Russian firm’s subsidiary.

“Whistleblowers” are supposed to be protected because the “whistleblowing” is usually on people or groups that can manipulate them or do them harm.  In this case, because of the nature of the case, and those involved, the “whistleblower” was not protected, but in fact it appears targeted and tampered with.

According to “The Daily Caller,” “16 FBI agents raided the Maryland home of Dennis Nathan Cain on Nov. 19 [2018].  Cain’s lawyer, Michael Socarras, told the website that the agent who led the raid accused his client of possessing stolen federal property.  In response, Cain reportedly claimed that he was a protected whistleblower under federal law and had been recognized as such by the DOJ watchdog, Michael Horowitz.”

Socarras also claimed that Horowitz had transmitted his information to The House and Senate intelligence committees.

The documents in question allegedly show that federal officials failed to investigate possible criminal activity related to Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, the Russian nuclear company whose subsidiary purchased Uranium One in 2013.

No one will ever see or hear of those documents again, unless Mr. Cain was wise enough to have created duplicates and dispersed them to multiple locations.

In his letter to Wray, Grassley asked on what basis the FBI raided Cain’s home?

Raided on what basis?

It was raided on a big CYA basis!  That’s what kind of basis!

It was raided because the FBI wanted to control whatever evidence was there.

He also asked whether the bureau was aware of Cain’s disclosures to Horowitz’s office; whether the bureau considered those disclosures to be protected, and whether agents seized classified information in the raid.

Grassley has given Wray and Horowitz until Dec. 12, 2018 to respond.

Anybody want to bet he ignores that deadline?

Anybody want to bet he ignores the request entirely?

Fox News has previously reported that Douglas Campbell, an FBI informant, involved in the deal, has testified to lawmakers that Moscow paid millions to American lobbying firm “APCO Worldwide” to influence Clinton and the Obama administration.

Wait…, let me get this straight…, “Moscow paid millions to American lobbying firm “APCO Worldwide” to influence Clinton and the Obama administration,” but we are investigating President Trump regarding Russian collusion and Russian influence in our election?

It must be really hard for Robert Mueller to manage an investigation against President Trump, when all he does is trip over evidence against Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration every time he turns around!

“The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over 12 months,” Campbell said in his statement this past February. “APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the US-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.”

APCO has denied Campbell’s claims while Clinton called any claims of wrongdoing related to the Uranium One deal “the same baloney they’ve been peddling for years, and there’s been no credible evidence by anyone.”

“In fact,” Clinton told C-SPAN in October, “it’s been debunked repeatedly and will continue to be debunked.”

Au contraire Mrs. Clinton.  Nothing here has been “debunked.”  The story has been ignored by the “biased, liberal, fake news media;” you and your friends continue to just deny, deny, deny, but nothing has been “debunked.”

It never hurts to have the FBI on your side either.

 

Thank you to Samuel Chamberlain of Fox news for contributing to this story.

 

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.

fbi compromised

Robert Mueller’s “Gestapo-like” tactics are being challenged in court!  

Conservative writer Jerome Corsi has filed a criminal complaint against Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team, which alleges their desire to seek false testimony from Mr. Corsi, along with other claims of “gross prosecutorial misconduct and criminal acts,” in regards to their investigation of Dr. Jerome Corsi, Ph.d.

In the complaint, Dr. Corsi, an investigative journalist, whose activities are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, claims he has been threatened with immediate indictment by Mueller’s prosecutorial staff unless he testifies falsely against Roger Stone and/or President Donald Trump and his presidential campaign, among other false testimony.

From what I have read of Mr. Corsi’s complaint, he seems to have a very good case on multiple claims, and Mr. Mueller and his henchmen are getting some light shined on their questionable activities and tactics.

Based on Mr. Corsi’s complaint, I believe Mueller could be guilty of:

18 U.S. Code § 1512 – Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.

Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official  proceeding.

And:

18 U.S. Code § 872 – Extortion by officers or employees of the United States

Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(“Ctrl” and “click” on the link below if you’d like to read the actual complaint that was submitted.)

READ: JEROME CORSI’S COMPLAINT AGAINST SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER

So why did I choose to call Mueller’s tactics “Gestapo-like?”  Well, let’s take a look at Hitler’s Gestapo first of all.

The Gestapo was the official secret political police of Nazi Germany.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “The Gestapo operated without civil restraints.”

This is starting to sound familiar already!

“During the Nazi regime’s existence, harsh measures were meted out to political opponents and those who resisted Nazi doctrine.  To the people, the Gestapo seemed omniscient and omnipotent, and it evoked an atmosphere of fear.  Opposition to Hitler and his regime was not tolerated, so the Gestapo had an important role to play in monitoring and prosecuting all who opposed Nazi rule, whether openly or covertly.”

Now let’s plug in a few current names and terms into this statement and see how it translates:

During “the swamp’s” existence, harsh measures were meted out to political opponents and those who resisted liberal doctrine.  To the liberals, Mueller and his team seemed omniscient and omnipotent, and it evoked an atmosphere of fear.  Opposition to “the swamp” and liberalism in general was not tolerated, so Mueller and his team had an important role to play in monitoring and prosecuting all who opposed “the swamp” and liberalism, whether openly or covertly.”

Get the picture?

I just read that a former attorney for President Trump, Michael Cohen, was forced to endure more than 70 hours of interrogation by Mueller and his team.  If that doesn’t conjure up visions of a Gestapo-like interrogation nothing does!

Ok, so back to the topic at hand.

Jerome Corsi, who is a conservative author, filed a “criminal and ethics complaint” against Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, accusing investigators of trying to bully him into giving “false testimony” against President Trump.

According to Judson Berger, Alex Pappas and Samuel Chamberlain of Fox News, and The Associated Press, “The complaint, which Corsi had threatened for days, is the latest escalation between Mueller’s team and its investigation targets.”

“The 78-page document, asserting the existence of a ‘slow-motion coup against the president,’ was filed to a range of top law enforcement officials including Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, D.C.’s U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu and the Bar Disciplinary Counsel.”

“Dr. Corsi has been criminally threatened and coerced to tell a lie and call it the truth,” the complaint states.

“Corsi, who wrote the anti-President Obama book “The Obama Nation” and is connected with political operative Roger Stone, has claimed for the past week that he was being improperly pressured by Mueller’s team to strike a plea deal which he now says he won’t sign.”

According to Corsi’s complaint, they wanted him to demonstrate that he acted as a liaison between Stone and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on one side and the Trump campaign on the other, regarding the release of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee.

The complaint states that Mueller’s office is now “knowingly and deceitfully threatening to charge Dr. Corsi with an alleged false statement,” unless he gives them “false testimony” against Trump and others.

Asked about the complaint, Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said they would decline to comment, as did a Justice Department spokesman.

Perhaps we need a Special Counsel to investigate the Special Counsel?

“The complaint is the latest sign of turbulence between Mueller’s team and investigation targets and witnesses.”

“President Trump has maintained his stance that ‘there is no collusion’ and blasted Mueller’s investigation in stark terms last week.”

Corsi is represented in his complaint by Larry Klayman, a conservative lawyer who founded “Judicial Watch” and is known for filing lawsuits against former President Bill Clinton.  In the complaint, Klayman argues that the activities of Corsi, as an “investigative journalist,” are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Where are all the people from “the media” that were losing their minds over CNN’s Jim Acosta’s alleged First Amendment rights concerns?  We all are certainly aware of why Jim Acosta gets treated differently than Jerome Corsi at this point.  Acosta plays for the liberal team and Corsi doesn’t.  It’s as simple as that.

 

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.

trials for treason

 

Former President Barack Obama says, “Fox News viewers and New York Times readers live in entirely different realities.”

“Whether it was (Walter) Cronkite or (David) Brinkley or what have you, there was a common set of facts, a baseline around which both parties had to adapt and respond to,” Obama said during a speech at Rice University, in Houston, Texas.

Excuse me Mr. President…, but Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley?  Really?  Cronkite last anchored CBS nightly news over 37 years ago, and Brinkley last co-anchored NBC nightly news over 39 years ago!

What this means is that none of the students at Rice University had any idea of who you were talking about!  And actually, you were only 18 years old yourself when Walter Cronkite retired!  You are two years younger than me, so I have a pretty good idea about how much of these guys you remember…, and it isn’t much, believe me.

It seems like you long for the days when “there was a common set of facts, a baseline around which both parties had to adapt.”

This statement seems quite odd to me.  Aren’t “the facts” “the facts,” regardless of who happens to be reporting the news?

What former President Obama is really saying is it was easier for the mainstream media (there were only three TV news outlets at that time, CBS, NBC and ABC) and the government establishment to control the news that was fed to the common people.  They were the ones who determined what “the facts” were, along with The Associated Press (AP), The Washington Post and The New York Times.

President Obama continued by saying, “And by the time I take office, what you increasingly have is a media environment in which if you are a Fox News viewer, you have an entirely different reality than if you are a New York Times reader.”

That’s right Mr. President, because in one case you have a news outlet which tries to be “fair and balanced” and another that promotes the liberal agenda and ideology.

“If you’re somebody who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in a while.  If you’re a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on The Huffington Post website.  It may make your blood boil, your mind may not be changed.  But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship.  It is essential for our democracy,” he said.

It doesn’t happen too often, but in this case of your last statement here, I would actually tend to agree with the former president.  Everything except the part about checking out The Huffington Post!  It doesn’t get more blatantly biased and ignorant than The Huffington Post!

According to “The Independent” website, 64% of Americans surveyed in a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll said “the media” was responsible for dividing the nation rather than uniting it, and I would tend to agree, because it is the intent of the democrats to create divisions in our country, hence it is the mission of “the biased, liberal, mainstream media” to do so as well, although they would, of course, point to Fox News as the perpetrator of this “dividing,” since they have to divert any focus away from themselves.

In an apparent effort to lend additional credibility to himself, and throw shade onto President Trump and his administration, Mr. Obama went on to say that, “Not only did I not get indicted, nobody in my administration got indicted, which, by the way, was the only administration in modern history that can be said about.  In fact nobody came close to being indicted.  Partly because the people who joined us were there for the right reasons.”

OK…, timeout!

It is true that no one from your administration was indicted, but is not because they didn’t deserve to be indicted, it was because your Attorney Generals, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, were as crooked as the day is long, and they were mere puppets who did whatever they were instructed to do by you.

The former president points to a reason for this “blemishless” record as being, “Partly because the people who joined us were there for the right reasons.”

The “right reasons” of course being they were willing to do as they were told, while keeping their mouths shut.

In response to President Obama’s beliefs regarding “the news” that people are exposed to, I need to point out a few things.

One: the amount of people who read the editorial page of The New York Times is infinitesimal.  Likewise, The Wall Street Journal.

Two: the vast, vast, majority of people do not watch or listen to any kind of “news” on any kind of regular basis.

Three: Most, not all, but most, people rely on other people to do their thinking for them in families, in schools, at work, in neighborhoods, in unions, in communities and even in races and cultures. The fact of the matter is that there are very few people that can make an educated argument about any issue, besides regurgitating buzz words and reciting pre-scripted responses.

The truth is that people live in a myriad of different realities, and that is will never change.  If by some chance we ever get “boiled down” into only two different realities, we are in trouble.

Americans in general, in my opinion, need to do a better job of being informed on what’s going on around us.  It’s really kind of scary when we realize how much people don’t know and what they aren’t aware of.

Independent and well-informed thought by the people will guarantee our continued independence as a nation in the future.

 

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 my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

a new study shows

 

The “biased, liberal, fake news media” shows its true colors once again!

In a special “runoff” election Tuesday night, the last Senate seat up for grabs in 2018 was claimed by the Republican, Cindy Hyde-Smith, by a 54% – 46% margin over the Democrat, Mike Espy.

I guess the “blue wave” didn’t make it too far ashore in the state of Mississippi!

But I digress.

Not only did Hyde-Smith win, giving the Republicans a 53-47 margin in the Senate, she was the first woman elected as a senator from the state of Mississippi.  So it was historical in that aspect as well.

Other than possibly the news regarding the migrant caravan on our southern border, this election story should probably have been the most newsworthy item out there this morning.

So, how did the “biased, liberal, fake news media” choose to cover this election story?

Well, let’s take a look the day after the election.

On “The Washington Post’s” website, you have to scroll down to the 28th story listed there.  The headline reads: “Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith wins racially charged election over Democrat Mike Espy.”

On “Yahoo News,” we have to scroll down to the 100th story listed there, where the headline reads: “Mississippi voters send Hyde-Smith back to the US Senate after runoff marred by controversy.”

On the MSNBC website, there is no mention of election results at all until we see a reference to a story that appears on their show, “Morning Joe,” regarding the election.  And we only see this after scrolling over halfway down the website, past 39 other stories.

Lastly, we have our good friends over at CNN.  Of the 100 articles listed on their website, we find no headline about the actual election results.  The only story we find is titled: “What we learned from the 2018 Senate race.”

We can see that even when the story is mentioned, albeit as an afterthought, it only appears with some sort of negative connotation along with it.

You see, when reality doesn’t support the narrative, reality is just basically ignored by the “biased, liberal, fake news media.

I call this “propaganda by omission,” and it is conducted by the “biased, liberal, fake news media” almost every day.

Alternatively, suppose the democrat had won the election in Mississippi.

Do you think the “biased, liberal, fake news media” would have covered the story any differently?

Do you think the story would have appeared more prominently in their “story pecking order?”

Do you think we may have seen more positive headlines, bordering on being almost joyous in nature?

The answers to these questions are YES, YES and YES.

So once again, we have a blatant display of how the “biased, liberal, fake news media” operates.

They can deny their bias, preferential treatment, misinformation and propagandizing all they want, but we are wise to their tricks now and they have our full and undivided attention. Their days of getting away with this are over!

 

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 my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

time-welcome-to-america-its-because-they-are-fake-news-34343909

You can have “softballs” or real questions President Obama…, and we’re all out of “softballs!”

President Barack Obama sat down with Bill O’Reilly, February 2, 2014, prior to the Super Bowl, to discuss an array of topics.

As we read over the selected portions of the transcripts for this two-part interview, the difference between how President Trump answers questions and how President Obama answers questions becomes very apparent, very quickly.

Donald Trump is not a politician at heart, and Barack Obama is.  This is something we should all be able to acknowledge.

Donald Trump actually answers questions that are posed to him.  Barack Obama dances around questions, manipulates the English language, and tries to dodge tough questions altogether.  In some cases he even chooses to be deceitful.

President Obama seems upset that someone is actually asking him these questions, as the “biased, liberal, fake news media” regularly gives him a pass on all of this “uncomfortable stuff.”

Since none of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” (CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, et al) chose to “hyper analyze” President Obama’s interview at the time, no one really did, I have decided to perform this community service in retrospect.

NOTE:  My comments will be inserted as “MER,” for MrEricksonRules.

Let’s take a look at this first part of the interview, regarding the rollout of the Obamacare Healthcare.gov website, Benghazi and the IRS scandal.

 

O’REILLY:  I want to get some things on the record.  So let’s begin with health care.

OBAMA:  Yes?

O’REILLY:  October 1st it rolls out.

OBAMA:  Right.

O’REILLY:  Immediately, there are problems with the computers.

OBAMA:  Right.

MER:  We have now experienced three honest and straight forward answers in a row.  It’s all downhill from here.

O’REILLY:  When did you know there were going to be problems with those computers?

OBAMA:  Well, I think we all anticipated there would be glitches, because any time you’ve got technology, a new program rolling out, there are going to be some glitches.  I don’t think I anticipated or anybody anticipated the degree of the problems with the Web site.  And…

MER:  Having been a software developer at one point, there doesn’t have to be an expectations of “glitches,” if the system is properly tested.  In order to properly test a system, it helps to have “users’ who ae competent and intelligent, as well as software developers who are competent and professional.  In this case, it would appear that we had neither.

O’REILLY:  So you just didn’t know when it rolled out that this was going to be…

OBAMA:  Well, I don’t think…

O’REILLY:  — a problem?

OBAMA:  — as I said, I don’t think anybody anticipated the degree of problems that you had on HealthCare.gov.  The good news is that right away, we decided how are we going to fix it, it got fixed within a month and a half, it was up and running and now it’s working the way it’s supposed to and we’ve signed up three million people.

MER: That is good news that you were able to decide how to fix it.  I’m shaking my head right now.  Oh…, and it only took a month and a half to fix it?!  Like I said, I was a software developer at one point, and this Healtcare.gov program does not seem to be a particularly complex program.  So who were these clowns that were responsible for developing this software, and why were they selected?  The company’s name is CGI Federal, and it’s owned by a Canadian firm, CGI Group.  CGI had done work in the healthcare arena before, and not all of it good.  Its performance on Ontario, Canada’s health-care medical registry for diabetes sufferers was so poor that officials ditched the $46.2 million contract after three years of missed deadlines.  Two good questions would be, why was an American company not selected, and why was this company selected, given its poor track record?  My guess is it would have something to do with campaign contributions, but I’m just cynical that way.

O’REILLY:  I don’t know about that [that it’s working the way it’s supposed to], because last week, there was an Associated Press call of people who actually went to the Web site and only 8 percent of them feel that it’s working well.

Why didn’t you fire Sebelius [Kathleen Sebelius was serving as the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services], the secretary in charge of this…

OBAMA:  (INAUDIBLE).

MER:  Excuse me…, what was that?

O’REILLY:  — because I mean she had to know, after all those years and all that money, that it wasn’t going to work?

MER: She was obviously clueless like all the rest of them in this administration.  There was absolutely NO excuse for this debacle.

OBAMA:  You know, my main priority right now is making sure that it delivers for the American people.  And what we…

O’REILLY:  You’re not going to answer that?

OBAMA:  — what, what we’ve ended up doing is we’ve got three million people signed up so far.  We’re about a month behind of where we anticipated we wanted to be.  We’ve got over six million people who have signed up for Medicaid.

(MRE: No, he’s not going to answer that.)

O’REILLY:  Yes.

OBAMA:  We’ve got three million young people under the age of 26 who have signed up on their parents’ plan.  And so what we’re constantly figuring out is how do we continue to improve it, how do we make sure that the folks who don’t have health insurance can get health insurance…

O’REILLY:  OK…

OBAMA:  — and those who are underinsured are able to get better health insurance.

O’REILLY:  I’m sure, I’m sure that the intent is noble, but I’m a taxpayer.

MER:  I would have to differ with you at this point O’Reilly.  I’m sure the intent is anything but noble.

OBAMA:  Yes.

O’REILLY:  And I’m paying Kathleen Sebelius’ salary and she screwed up.

OBAMA:  Yes.

O’REILLY:  And you’re not holding her accountable.

OBAMA:  Yes, well, I…, I promise you that we hold everybody up and down the line accountable.  But when we’re…

MER:  That’s a lie.

O’REILLY:  But she’s still there.

OBAMA:  — when we’re in midstream, Bill, we want to make sure that our main focus is how do we make this thing work so that people are able to sign up?  And that’s what we’ve done.

O’REILLY:  All right.

Was it the biggest mistake of your presidency to tell the nation over and over, if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance?

OBAMA:  Oh, Bill, you’ve got a long list of my mistakes of my presidency…

MER: I wouldn’t call it a “long list of mistakes,” seeing this is only the second “mistake” that he’s addressing.)

O’REILLY:  But, no, really, for you…

OBAMA:  — as I’ve (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY:  — wasn’t that the biggest one?

OBAMA:  But this is, this is one that I regret and I’ve said I regretted, in part because we put in a grandfather clause in the original law saying that, in fact, you were supposed to be able to keep it.  It obviously didn’t cover everybody that we needed to and that’s why we changed it, so that we further grandfathered in folks and many people who thought originally, when they got that cancellation notice, they couldn’t keep it or not (INAUDIBLE)…

MER: Ah hah!  The old, dreaded, double grandfathered law scenario!  Nice try President Obama.  We all knew that was a lie, and so did you.  You repeated this lie to the American people well over twenty times!  “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.  Period!”  There didn’t seem to be any concern about some “clause in the original law” then.  Please note that the “biased, liberal, fake news media” completely looked the other way on this one.  Not one “biased, liberal, fake news media” outlet so much as made mention of President Obama’s faulty claims or questioned them at the time.  Can you imagine if President Trump had made a similar type of claim?  Exactly.

O’REILLY:  It’s in the past.  But isn’t that the…

OBAMA:  So…

O’REILLY:  — biggest mistake?

OBAMA:  Well, I, you know, Bill, as I said…

O’REILLY:  You gave your enemies…

OBAMA:  You…

O’REILLY:  — a lot of fodder for it.

OBAMA:  — you were very generous in saying I look pretty good considering I’ve been in the presidency for five years.  And I think part of the reason is, I try to focus not on the fumbles, but on the next plan.

MER:  That’s probably wise.  It would be hard to even attempt to focus on the vast array of fumbles swirling around you!

O’REILLY:  All right.

Libya, House Armed Services testimony, General Carter Ham, you know, the general?

OBAMA:  Yes.  Right.

O’REILLY:  Security in Africa.

OBAMA:  Yes.

O’REILLY:  He testified that on the day that the ambassador was murdered and the three other Americans, all right, he told Secretary Panetta it was a terrorist attack.  Shortly after Ham, General Ham, said that, Secretary Panetta came in to you.

OBAMA:  Yes.

O’REILLY:  Did he tell you, Secretary Panetta, it was a terrorist attack?

OBAMA:  You know what he told me was that there was an attack on our compound…

O’REILLY:  He didn’t tell you…

OBAMA:  — (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY:  — he didn’t use the word “terror?”

OBAMA:  You know, in — in the heat of the moment, Bill, what folks are focused on is what’s happening on the ground, do we have eyes on it, how can we make sure our folks are secure…

O’REILLY:  Because I just want to get this on the record…

OBAMA:  So, I…

O’REILLY:  — did he tell you it was a terror attack?

OBAMA:  Bill — and what I’m — I’m answering your question.  What he said to me was, we’ve got an attack on our compound.  We don’t know yet…

O’REILLY:  No terror attack?

OBAMA:  — we don’t know yet who’s doing it.  Understand, by definition, Bill, when somebody is attacking our compound…

O’REILLY:  Yes?

OBAMA:  — that’s an act of terror, which is how I characterized it the day after it happened.  So the — so the question ends up being who, in fact, was attacking us?

O’REILLY:  But it’s more than that…

OBAMA:  And that…

O’REILLY:  — though…

OBAMA:  — well, we…

O’REILLY:  — because of Susan Rice.

OBAMA:  No, it…

O’REILLY:  It’s more than that because if Susan Rice goes out and tells the world that it was a spontaneous demonstration…

MER:  Ah yes…, “clueless” Susan Rice.  President Obama’s talking puppet of choice.  Her performances on the Sunday talk shows was especially “swampy” in this case.

OBAMA:  Bill…

O’REILLY:  — off a videotape but your…

OBAMA:  Bill…

O’REILLY:  — your commanders and the secretary of Defense know it’s a terror attack…

OBAMA:  Now, Bill…

O’REILLY:  Just…

OBAMA:  — Bill…

O’REILLY:  — as an American…

OBAMA:  — Bill — Bill…

MER:  That’s seven “Bills,” just to be clear.

O’REILLY:  — I’m just confused.

OBAMA:  And I’m — and I’m trying to explain it to, if you want to listen.  The fact of the matter is, is that people understood, at the time, something very dangerous was happening, that we were focused on making sure that we did everything we can — could — to protect them.  In the aftermath, what became clear was that the security was lax, that not all the precautions and — that needed to be taken were taken and both myself and Secretary Clinton and others indicated as much.

But at the moment, when these things happen, Bill, on the other side of the world, people…

O’REILLY:  It’s the fog of war…

OBAMA:  — people — that’s — people don’t know at the very moment exactly why something like this happens.  And when you look at the videotape of this whole thing unfolding, this is not some systematic, well organized process.  You see…

MER:  It was the anniversary of 9/11.  That’s why something like this happens.  On the anniversary of 9/11 all of our foreign entities, especially those in Muslim countries, should be on a heightened state of alert, and response forces around the world should be on a heightened state of readiness as well.  This was just another demonstration of the Obama administration’s ineptitude

O’REILLY:  Well, it was heavy weapons used…

OBAMA:  — you…

O’REILLY:  — and that…

OBAMA:  — what you…

O’REILLY:  — that’s the thing…

OBAMA:  — what you see — Bill…

O’REILLY:  — heavy weapons coming in.

OBAMA:  — Bill, listen, I — I — I’ve gone through this and we have had multiple hearings on it.  What happens is you have an attack like this taking place and you have a mix of folks who are just troublemakers.  You have folks who have an ideological agenda.

MER:  Just for the record Mr. President, they’re called “radical Islamic terrorists.”  They’re not only “a mix of folks who are just troublemakers.”  These aren’t some frat boys trashing a dorm.

O’REILLY:  All right.

OBAMA:  You have some who are affiliated with terrorist organizations.  You have some that are not.  But the main thing that all of us have to take away from this is our diplomats are serving in some very dangerous places.

MER:  Reeeeeally?!

O’REILLY:  But there’s more…

OBAMA:  And we’ve got…

O’REILLY:  — there’s more than that…

OBAMA:  — and we’ve got — and we’ve got to make sure that not only have we implemented all the reforms that were recommended…

MER:  I believe the reforms that were recommended were, one: pull your head out of your arse, and two, try using common sense once in a while.  They didn’t even bother to recommend putting the country or the American people ahead of your political ambitions because it just didn’t occur to them that “that” was an option!

O’REILLY:  OK.

OBAMA:  — by the independent agency…

O’REILLY:  I…

OBAMA:  — but we also have to make sure that we understand our folks out there are in a hazardous, dangerous situation…

O’REILLY:  I think everybody understands that…

MER:  Yes, we do understand that.

OBAMA:  — and we…

O’REILLY:  — Mr. President.

OBAMA:  No, but — but, actually, not everybody does, because what ends up happening…

MER:  Apparently everybody does…, except you and your administration, Mr. President!

O’REILLY:  I think they do.

OBAMA:  — what ends up happening is we end up creating a political agenda…

MER:  Just to be clear…, that is ALL you and your friends do is create and manage your political agenda.

O’REILLY:  Absolutely…

OBAMA:  — over something…

O’REILLY:  — and that’s…

OBAMA:  — (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY:  — that was my next question.

OBAMA:  — which Democrats and Republicans should be unified in trying to figure out how are we going to protect people (INAUDIBLE)?

O’REILLY:  I’ve got to get to the IRS…

OBAMA:  OK.

O’REILLY:  — but I just want to say that they’re — your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn’t want that out.

MER:  Bingo!

OBAMA:  Bill, think about…

O’REILLY:  That’s what they believe.

OBAMA:  — and they believe it because folks like you are telling them that.

MER:  Are you calling Bill O’Reilly and Fox News “fake news” Mr. President?

O’REILLY:  No, I’m not telling them that.

(LAUGHTER)

MER:  I do believe he is calling you “fake news,” O’Reilly!

O’REILLY:  I’m asking you whether you were told…

OBAMA:  But — and what I’m saying is…

O’REILLY:  — it was a terror attack and you…

OBAMA:  — and what I’m saying is that is inaccurate.

O’REILLY:  All right.

OBAMA:  We, we revealed to the American people exactly what we understood at the time.  The notion that we would hide the ball for political purposes when, a week later, we all said, in fact, there was a terrorist attack taking place the day after, I said it was an act of terror, that wouldn’t be a very good cover-up…

MER: The Benghazi attack took place on Sept. 11, 2012 (on the anniversary of 9/11) and into Sept 12, 2012.  This was a good month and a half prior to the 2012 presidential election.  You and your administration, Mr. President, did in fact perpetrate a cover-up and the deception of the American people.

According to an article by Kelly Riddell, for The Washington Times, June, 28, 2016, “A post Benghazi report points out Obama, Clinton lies.”

The scandal of Benghazi, and yes it was a scandal, reflects the effort by the Obama administration to deflect attention from failed American foreign policy and the rise of terrorism, through a conscious spin effort that hid the truth from the American public.

According to the House Benghazi report, “The Obama administration knew attacks on the consulate were because of terrorism, but they knowingly changed the narrative to blame an ‘inflammatory’ viral video, to escape any culpability of the attacks so close to a November election. In the 2012 campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly spoke of not only killing Osama bin Laden, but how Al Qaeda had been ‘decimated’ under his watch.  Any word Benghazi was actually a terrorist attack would undermine this narrative.”

In her first public comment on the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, Mrs. Clinton blamed the attack on a viral video.

“I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today,” said Mrs. Clinton, then secretary of state. “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

The next day, Mrs. Clinton told the American public the administration was “working to determine the precise motivations” of those who carried out the assaults, but that “some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.”

Privately, she told the Egyptian Prime minister: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest. … Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”

Another day goes by, and publicly Mrs. Clinton continues to blame the internet video in her remarks in Morocco.

On Sept. 14, White House spokesman Jay Carney, answering a question about Benghazi during a press conference, said: “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy.”

This was a blatant lie.  But it was spin directed from the top, Mr. Obama’s and Mrs. Clinton’s political future was at stake, after all.

An email sent to officials from White House foreign policy adviser Benjamin Rhodes, with the subject line, “goals,” shows the Benghazi narrative was: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

But IT WAS a broader failure of U.S. policy!

CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell said in a written statement to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence a few days later, “The critically important point is that the analysts considered this a terror attack from the very beginning.”

Mrs. Clinton blamed her changing public statements on differing intelligence reports she received in real-time.  But there’s no evidence to suggest Mrs. Clinton had anything but clarity, right from the evening of the attack, that it was indeed terrorism.

Her public and private statements remained consistently at odds with each other. Privately, there was no doubt the attack was terrorism; publicly, it was blamed on a video and protesting, despite there being no eyewitness accounts of a protest.

She knew. The administration knew. But it wasn’t politically expedient to admit.  So a lie was created, the narrative set, and everyone stuck to it.

MER:  At this point, what difference does it make!?  Oh…, I’m sorry Hillary…, that was your line!

O’REILLY:  I’ve got to get to the IRS…

OBAMA:  Yes.

O’REILLY:  — because I don’t know what happened there and I’m hoping maybe you can tell us.  Douglas Shulman, former IRS chief, he was cleared into the White House 157 times, more than any of your cabinet members, more than any other IRS guy in the history, by far.

OK, why was Douglas Shulman here 157 times?

Why?

OBAMA:  Mr. Shulman, as the head of the IRS, is constantly coming in, because at the time, we were trying to set up the, uh, HealthCare.gov and the IRS…

O’REILLY:  What did he have to do with that?

OBAMA:  — and the IRS is involved in making sure that that works as part of the overall health care team.

O’REILLY:  So it was all health care?

OBAMA:  Number two, we’ve also got the IRS involved when it comes to some of the financial reforms to make sure that we don’t have taxpayer funded bailouts in the future.  So you had all these different agendas in which the head of the IRS is naturally involved.

MER:  I wouldn’t say the head of the IRS should “naturally be involved” with anything other than collecting taxes, and certainly not with “taxpayer funded bailouts!”

O’REILLY:  Did you speak to him a lot…

OBAMA:  — (INAUDIBLE).

O’REILLY:  — yourself?

OBAMA:  I do not recall meeting with him in any of these meetings that are pretty routine meetings that we had.

MER:  Out of 157, that’s 157, visits to The White House, President Obama doesn’t “recall meeting with him in any of these meetings.”  Now that’s what I call a good example of “plausible deniability!”

O’REILLY:  OK, so you don’t — you don’t recall seeing Shulman, because what some people are saying is that the IRS was used…

OBAMA:  Yes.

O’REILLY:  — at a — at a local level in Cincinnati, and maybe other places to go after…

OBAMA:  Absolutely wrong.

O’REILLY:  — to go after.

OBAMA:  Absolutely wrong.

O’REILLY:  But how do you know that, because we — we still don’t know what happened there?

OBAMA:  Bill, we do — that’s not what happened.  They — folks have, again, had multiple hearings on this.  I mean these kinds of things keep on surfacing, in part because you and your TV station will promote them.

MER:  Yes, we remember these great hearings, highlighted by Lois Lerner and her refusal to testify, but somehow make a statement anyway.

O’REILLY:  But don’t…

OBAMA:  But when (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY:  — think there are unanswered questions?

OBAMA:  Bill, when you actually look at this stuff, there have been multiple hearings on it.  What happened here was it that you’ve got a…

O’REILLY:  But there’s no definition on it.

OBAMA:  — you’ve got a 501(c)(4) law that people think is focusing.  No — that the folks did not know how to implement…

O’REILLY:  OK…

OBAMA:  — because it basically says…

O’REILLY:  — so you’re saying there was no…

OBAMA:  — if you are involved…

O’REILLY:  — no corruption there at all, none?

OBAMA:  That’s not what I’m saying.

O’REILLY:  (INAUDIBLE).

OBAMA:  That’s actually…

O’REILLY:  No, no, but I want to know what…

OBAMA:  — (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY:  — you’re saying.  You’re the leader of the country.

OBAMA:  Absolutely.

O’REILLY:  You’re saying no corruption?

OBAMA:  No.

O’REILLY:  None?

OBAMA:  There were some — there were some bone-headed decisions…

MER:  Now that we can believe!

O’REILLY:  Bone-headed decisions…

OBAMA:  — out of — out of a local office…

O’REILLY:  But no mass corruption?

OBAMA:  Not even mass corruption, not even a smidgeon of corruption, I would say.

MER:  “Not even a smidgeon?”  The “biased, liberal, fake news media” even felt obligated to chime in regarding this obvious abuse of power:

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow said: “There is a reasonable fear by all of us, by any of us, that the kind of power the IRS has could be misused,” she further said that this scrutiny of Tea Party groups was “not fair.”

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart stated that the controversy “threw doubt on President Obama’s ‘managerial competence’ and had proven correct ‘conspiracy theorists.’”

ABC News’ Terry Moran wrote that this was: “A truly Nixonian abuse of power by the Obama administration.”

NBC’s White House correspondent Chuck Todd said, “It didn’t seem like they had a sense of urgency about it, a real sense of outrage,” and further; “This is outrageous no matter what political party you are.”

Even MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said, “This is tyranny,” and talked about “unspeakable abuses by the IRS.”

O’REILLY:  OK.  I got a letter from Kathy LaMaster (ph), Fresno, California.  I said I would read one letter from the folks, all right?

OBAMA:  All right.

O’REILLY:  “Mr. President, why do you feel it’s necessary to fundamentally transform the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity and success?”

OBAMA:  I don’t think we have to fundamentally transform the nation…

O’REILLY:  But those are your words.

MER:  Just because President Obama has said he wants to “fundamentally transform the nation,” numerous times in the past, this doesn’t mean he actually wants to do it, O’Reilly!

OBAMA:  I think that what we have to do is make sure that here in America, if you work hard, you can get ahead.  Bill, you and I benefitted from this incredible country of ours, in part, because there were good jobs out there that paid a good wage, because you had public schools that functioned well, that we could get scholarships if we didn’t come from a wealthy family, in order to go to college.

O’REILLY:  Right.

OBAMA:  That, you know, if you worked hard, not only did you have a good job, but you also had decent benefits, decent health care…

O’REILLY:  They’re cutting me off…

OBAMA:  — and for a lot of folks, we don’t have that.  We’ve got to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to expand the middle class…

MER:  President Obama’s idea of “expanding the middle class” is making sure everyone has a “good paying job” at a fast food restaurant, enrollment in Obamacare, and all the food stamps you can get your hands on, along with any other government benefits that may apply.

O’REILLY:  All right…

OBAMA:  — and work hard and people who are working hard can get into the middle class.

O’REILLY:  I think — I — you know, I know you think maybe we haven’t been fair, but I think your heart is in the right place.

MER:  Not even that is a fair statement, Mr. O’Reilly.

 

Please note that the full transcript of this interview is available on-line as well as the full video record of the interview.  Watch the video if you want to get the full effect of President Obama’s condescending tone which we all know and love!

 

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 my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

O'Really and obama cropped

 

The “biased, liberal, fakes news media’s” take on President Trump’s recent FOX News interview.  And my take on their take! 

President Trump sat down with “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace, for an interview, November 18, 2018, regarding his first two years in the nation’s highest office.

This blog is my reaction to CNN Editor, Chris Cillizza’s reaction to the Chris Wallace interview.

Mr. Cillizza went through the transcript from the interview and picked out, in his words, “the most, uh, memorable lines” of the interview in his opinion.

Mr. Cillizza had no positive reaction to anything The President said, of course.  He was only looking for comments by The President to be critical of.

Here are President Trump’s statements (PT), Chris Cillizza’s comment (CC), and my reaction to it all (MER.)

 

PT: “There was no collusion whatsoever, and the whole thing is a scam.”

CC: “191 criminal counts, 35 people/entities charged, 6 people pleaded guilty, 1 found guilty in trial.”

MER: Robert Mueller and his motley crew have been at this “investigation” for coming up on two years now, and they have not come up with anything to do with the Trump campaign’s imaginary involvement with Russia or anything against The President.  All of these charges and criminal counts are for unrelated and miscellaneous items.  Mr. Cillizza’s comments are disingenuous, and they imply The President’s comment is incorrect, when in fact The President is absolutely correct.

 

PT: “I won the Senate, you don’t mention that.”

CC: “He won the Senate.  Not the candidates, or the party, Donald Trump won it.”

MER: President Trump was only replying to the statement in the manner it was made.  Chris Wallace stated “you lost the House of Representatives…,” and President Trump Responded with, “I won the Senate, you don’t mention that.”  In general, it probably would have helped Mr. Cillizza if he had actually watched the interview as opposed to just reviewing the transcript.

 

PT: “I won the Senate. … Number two, I wasn’t on the ballot.”

CC: “Um. So, Trump won the Senate but any losses can’t be blamed on him because he wasn’t on the ballot. [Puts on green accountant visor thing-y] Yup, this all adds up.”

MER: That’s really cute Mr. Cillizza, but disingenuous again.  President Trump didn’t say “losses couldn’t be blamed” on him.  He just stated the fact that he “wasn’t on the ballot,” which is true.

 

PT: “But I had people, and you see the polls, how good they are, I had people that won’t vote unless I’m on the ballot, OK? And I wasn’t on the ballot.”

CC: “I love a good word salad.”

MER: Granted, The President was maybe a little choppy with his wording here, but I think we all got the gist of what he was saying.  I also do not recall any of President Obama’s incoherent rambling, at any point, being referred to as a “word salad.” Just saying.

 

PT: “And it was all stacked against Brian, and I was the one that went for Brian and Brian won.”

CC: “Brian Kemp did win the Georgia governor’s race. But it was not stacked against him. At all. The last time a Democrat was elected governor of Georgia was Roy Barnes in 1998.The last time a Democrat won Georgia in a presidential race was Bill Clinton in 1992.”

MER: With all due respect Mr. Cillizza, the race for governor was “stacked against him.”  “Outside” democrat money poured into this campaign; over $65 million in total.  Stacey Abrams was funded by George Soros and other democrats with seemingly endless resources.  Former President Barack Obama campaigned in Georgia for Abrams, and Oprah Winfrey made campaign stops on numerous occasions as well.

 

PT: “Rick Scott won and he won by a lot.”

CC: “Scott won by 10,033 votes. Out of more than 8 million cast.”

MER: Technically you’re correct here, Mr. Cillizza, that was the final, official count, but that was only after the democrats were allowed to keep voting for an additional week, and conveniently misplace or lose other republican ballots during the recount.  If Florida’s election results had been tabulated properly and fairly, yes, Rick Scott would have “won by a lot,” considering he was unseating a Senator who had been in office for decades.

 

PT: “The news about me is largely phony. It’s false. Even sometimes they’ll say, ‘Sources say.’ There is no source, in many cases, in [other] cases there is.”

CC: “Again, this is about Donald Trump not liking the news. Not about the news being “largely phony.” And the idea that mainstream media organizations make up sources is beyond ridiculous.”

MER:  No, this isn’t about President Trump “not liking the news,” it’s about President Trump not liking being treated unfairly.  It’s about “fake news” that is created to suit the liberal narrative, and it’s about “fake news” that very rarely cites an identifiable source.  Additionally, I would classify nothing the “biased, liberal, mainstream media” does as being “beyond ridiculous.”

 

PT: “He’s a Hillary Clinton backer and an Obama backer.”

CC: “Trump is talking here about William McRaven, the former head of US Special Operations Command and the architect of the raid that led to the death of Osama bin Laden. Why? Because McRaven said that Trump’s attempts to undermine the press were a threat to democracy. And because Trump is incapable of seeing anything outside of a purely partisan lens. Also, Trump is wrong about McRaven’s political preferences; ‘I did not back Hillary Clinton or anyone else,’ McRaven told CNN.”

MER: Excuse me, but President Trump is absolutely right…, again.  McRaven has been critical of Candidate and President Trump on numerous occasions and about numerous topics.  McRaven may not have come out and announced his support for Hillary, BUT he was being considered as Hillary’s running mate for a period of time!  I think we can safely put him in the democrats’ wing of the political spectrum.   You then state that, “Trump is incapable of seeing anything outside of a purely partisan lens.”  Please list for me any member of our nationally elected government who doesn’t view thing through a “purely partisan lens.”  Please list for me anyone from your “biased, liberal, fake news media” who doesn’t view thing through a “purely partisan lens,” for that matter.

 

PT: “And, Chris, you know that better…, you don’t have to sit here and act like a perfect little, wonderful, innocent angel.  I know you too well. I knew your father too well, that’s not your gene.”

CC: “I am frankly surprised that it took this long for Trump to turn on Wallace.  Despite the obvious pro-Trump bias of lots of the shows (and people) on Fox news, Wallace is a straight-shooter and tough questioner. I’m actually surprised, given that, that Trump agreed to sit down for an interview with him.”

MER: The fact that you feel Chris Wallace is a “straight shooter,” Mr. Cillizza, actually knocks Chris Wallace down a few pegs in my book.  You say you’re “surprised” President Trump agreed to an interview with Wallace, but I doubt that President Trump would turn down an interview request from most well-known interviewers.  I also applaud President Trump for calling Wallace out.  These interviewers are not the embodiment of integrity, decency and forthrightness that they portend to be.

 

PT: “I think I’m doing a great job. We have the best economy we’ve ever had.”

CC: “Modesty has never been Trump’s strong suit.”

MER: President Trump could afford to be more modest if the “biased, liberal, fake news media” were able to give him credit for anything he has accomplished or reported anything he does from a positive point of view.

 

PT: “I would give myself…, I would…, look…, I hate to do it, but I will do it.  I would give myself an A-plus, is that enough?  Can I go higher than that?”

CC: “Two things: 1) He doesn’t hate to do it, and 2) The President asked if he could give himself a grade higher than an ‘A+.’ So, here we are.”

MER: First of all, you don’t know what President Trump “hates to do,” or what he doesn’t “hate to do.”  He feels he has done an excellent job, apparently, and I would tend to agree with him.

 

Before closing, I would like to point out that Chris Cillizza never refers to President Trump as “President Trump” or “The President.”  Cillizza only refers to The President as “Trump” or “Donald Trump.”  I’m sure this a conscious decision, and intentionally disrespectful, in my opinion.

President Trump typically responds in the same manner that he is addressed, and usually in an even nicer tone. He is not your typical politician, and he generally responds with an honest opinion or answer, like it or not.  He doesn’t “talk down” to his audience, nor does he try to talk over their heads.

Unless you take President Trump from a predetermined position of opposition and dislike, like the “biased, liberal, fake news media” does, you have to admire and appreciate the way President Trump doesn’t mince words, and how he interacts with the “biased, liberal, fake news media.”

Stay thirsty my friends, but don’t drink that liberal Kool-Aid!

 

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 my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

cnn lie about trump cropped

Liar, liar…, pants on…, fire? 

If someone’s opinion or belief is different from yours does that constitute a “lie.”

The “biased, liberal, fake news media,” the Hollywood liberals, and democrats in general, are constantly berating our President as everything negative under the Sun.  They contend that every other word out of his mouth is “a lie.”

So I decided to give them a chance to convince me.  I checked out some of these documented lists of “lies.”  Lists that purport to contain 3,000, 4,000, even up to 5,000 documented “lies!”

Here are some of “the lies” (supposedly the worst) that “Politifact,” “The Washington Post,” “CNN,” “The (failing) New York Times,” “Esquire,” “New Yorker,” and “USA Today” claim President Trump has made:

“The Democrats want to invite caravan after caravan of illegal aliens into our country. And they want to sign them up for free health care, free welfare, free education, and for the right to vote.”

(What’s a “lie” about this statement?  I would ask Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer [the two that tell the rest of the democrats what to think] if they have a problem with this statement and I’m sure they would say ‘no.’)

“Democrats oppose any effort to secure our border.”

(If this isn’t true, please tell me what effort they have not opposed.)

“Many presidents don’t get the chance to put a Supreme Court justice on.”

(There have actually been four, with Jimmy Carter being the most recent.  I’m not sure if four should be considered “many,” but I would also have a hard time calling this a “lie.”)

“Every single Democrat in the U.S. Senate has signed up for open borders, and it’s a bill, it’s called the ‘open borders bill.’”

(Ooops.  These people pointing their fingers need to check out the “fine print” of Diane Feinstein’s “Borders Bill.”  And yes, every single democrat senator backs it.)

“Senator Richard Blumenthal said he served in Vietnam, in Da Nang Province.  ‘Soldiers dying left and right as we battled up the hill.’  And then he cried when they (the press) caught him.”

(Nothing false about this one.  He may not have actually cried tears, but…..)

Says Republicans “just passed” the Veterans Choice program after 44 years of trying. “They’ve been trying to pass that one for many, many decades.”

(Well, I’m approaching retirement age myself, and I can recall this being an issue quite aways back, so they are obviously splitting hairs over that “44 years” number.  Does it really make that big of a difference?  I guess it does when you’re looking to hang someone out to dry over a technicality of a year here or a year there.)

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, “we lost millions of jobs.”

(I’m not sure what their issue is with this statement.  They obviously don’t agree with his number of jobs, but I think it would be hard to prove otherwise.)

“96 percent of (Google News) results on ‘Trump News’ are from National Left-Wing Media.”

(Speaking from personal experience, I would have to go along with The President, not to mention the recent documenting of Google’s left leaning policies and unfair search practices.)

“U.S. Steel just announced that they are building six new steel mills.”

(How can anyone argue what U.S. Steel announced to him?)

Says the Steele dossier “was responsible for starting” Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia.

(Well, it was.  Other than the now debunked dossier, which was used as the basis for spying on him and his campaign, and as the basis for “Russian collusion claims,” there would have been no starting point for the assignment of a special counsel.  Period.)

“The Electoral College is much more advantageous for Democrats.”

(As with many of these statements, they are opinions, and therefore they cannot be “lies.”  I would have to agree, however, with The President here, as democrats are basically given a 100 electoral vote head start between California, New York and Illinois.)

“Many countries (in NATO) owe us a tremendous amount of money for many years back, where they’re delinquent, as far as I’m concerned, because the United States has had to pay for them.”

(What issue the “biased, liberal, fake news media” has with this statement is beyond me.  I think it has been well documented that most, if not all, of our NATO “friends” have been taking advantage of the United States’ for quite a few years now.

“I have watched ICE liberate towns from the grasp of MS-13.”

(Again, I know the “biased, liberal, fake news media” does not normally report on the positive accomplishments of ICE, only negatively spun stories offered up by their democratic partners in crime.)

“Watch those GDP numbers. We started off at a very low number, and right now we hit a 3.2 (percent).  Nobody thought that was possible.”

(I’m sure some people thought it was possible, but most people in the “biased, liberal, fake news media didn’t.  Again, hard to call this a “lie.”)

Regarding the current immigration laws: A “horrible law” requires that children be separated from their parents “once they cross the Border into the U.S.”

(Again, it seems we’re splitting hairs here.  It is a “horrible law,” and it only applies to people who choose to enter the U.S. illegally.)

Says North Korea has “agreed to denuclearization.”

(Well, Kim Jong-un did agree to work towards denuclearization.  Where’s the “lie.”)

“Only fools, or worse, are saying that our money losing Post Office makes money with Amazon. THEY LOSE A FORTUNE, and this will be changed.”

(Someone is doubting that the Post Office is, and has been, losing money? Someone doubts the Post Office is losing money on probably their biggest customer, Amazon?  Or are they doubting that President Trump is going to do something about this?  In either case, it’s hard to call this statement a “lie.”)

“When I was campaigning, I was talking about 18 and 20 years (when) wages effectively went down. Now, for the first time in a long time, they’re starting to go up for people.”

(Based on my own experience, it was about 20 years ago when people were asked to take wage cuts or wage freezes, and “now, for the first time in a long time, they’re starting to go up for people.” No “lie” here.)

“Democrats are nowhere to be found on DACA.”

True.  No lie here.  The democrats failed to deal with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), or the “Dreamers” law, while they had the presidency, and majorities in the House and the Senate in 2008-2010, and the democrats chose to reject a very good compromise offered by President Trump in 2017.  It is true that the democrats have abandoned the DACA recipients.)

The immigration visa lottery “randomly hands out green cards without any regard for skill, merit, or the safety of American people.”

(True.  No lie here.  This lottery system, credited to Senator Charles Schumer, is an absolute joke and an absolute travesty.  How this law ever got passed is beyond me.  The democrats just have to own this mess instead of claiming President Trump is “lying” about it.)

“We enacted the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history.”

(True.  No lie here.  I’m not sure how they can even challenge this, whatsoever.)

There is “substantial evidence of voter fraud.”

Again, True.  There definitely is “substantial evidence of voter fraud.”  Especially after the recent ballot counting debacles in Florida and Georgia.)

“We essentially repealed Obamacare because we got rid of the individual mandate … and that was a primary source of funding of Obamacare.”

(Ok, Obamacare wasn’t “essentially repealed,” but taking away the individual mandate got rid of the problem of people being forced to buy lousy insurance, thus neutering the entire system for the most part.  In this case I would say we’re looking at more an exaggeration as opposed to a “lie.”)

“Hillary Clinton lied many times to the FBI.”

(That is the President’s opinion, and mine as well by the way.  Again, opinions by definition cannot be “lies.”  I believe honest people using basic common sense would also arrive at this conclusion.)

Wages “haven’t gone up for a long time.”

(No lie here.  Please refer to my statement above regarding wages going up.)

Untaxed corporate earnings used to be “$2.5 trillion…, I guess it’s $5 trillion now.  Whatever it is, it’s a lot more.  So we have anywhere from 4 (trillion) to 5 or even more trillions of dollars sitting offshore.”

(Based on the President’s language here, how can you call this a “lie?”  It’s obvious that he is “ball parking,” or “guesstimating” his figures here.  He is just trying to get the idea across that “Whatever it is, it’s a lot more.”)

“We’ve signed more bills, and I’m talking about through the legislature, than any president ever.”

(Granted, several modern presidents have signed more, but not in the same short time frame of his first year and a half.)

“All pipelines that are coming into this country from now on has to be American steel.”

(That is his intent.  How can they call this a “lie?”)

“The weak illegal immigration policies of the Obama Administration allowed bad MS 13 gangs to form in cities across U.S.  We are removing them fast!”

(Again, this is true and true again.  In any regard, “weak” is an opinion, even if it is correct.)

Referring to the large numbers of immigrants taken in by Sweden recently: “Look at what’s happening in Sweden.  Sweden, who would believe this?  Sweden.  They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible.”

(No lie here.  It is well documented that Sweden has been experiencing horrible, never seen before, problems regarding the immigrants that they took in over that few years.)

FakeNewsSweden

“Americans don’t care at all about my (Donald Trump’s personal) tax returns.”

(I’m sure some Americans do.  I don’t.  But I guess he really shouldn’t over-generalize the feelings of “Americans” in general.  But again, that’s his opinion and hard to characterize it as a “lie.”)

“We had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the Electoral College.”

(I’m guessing the “biased, liberal, fake news media” has a problem with his use of the term “landslide,” however, his electoral victory was 304-227, or 57%-43%.  In politics, a victory by more than 10% is commonly referred to as a landslide, so…)

“I have tremendous support from women.”

(Again, his opinion.)

Referring to his standing room only rallies: “The media never shows the crowds.”

(They have at times, but they usually don’t.  Again, I would classify it as an exaggeration, not a “lie.”

Says Hillary Clinton was “let off the hook” for her email scandal while Gen. David Petraeus had his life “destroyed for doing far, far less.”

(Again, true.  Petraeus was appointed CIA Director by Barack Obama, and served as the CIA Director 2011-2012.  He was found guilty of “mishandling” classified info, and he was forced to resign, based on some emails he shared with the person writing his biography.  So, where’s the “lie” regarding the President’s statement?)

Says Hillary Clinton “wants to go to a single-payer plan” for health care.

(That is her ultimate goal, and she has even stated this numerous times.  Again, where exactly is the “lie.”

These lists go on and on, but they are most just more of the same.

Like I mentioned, these supposed “lies” are promoted as the worst examples, so the case for the remaining claims would lose even more validity it would logically seem.

Other statements that were claimed to be “lies” were actually just “knit picking” about a detail being slightly off here or there, or slight exaggerations used to emphasize a point.  The “biased, liberal, fake news media” hold President Trump to a level of scrutiny that they themselves surely could not, and do not, achieve.

Is everything that President Trump says always 100% accurate or correct?  No.  But accusing him of “lying” infers that he had premeditated intent to mislead, which I honestly believe he did not.

For instance, President Trump’s statements (choose any that you want) do not rise anywhere near the level of the BIG LIE told by President Obama regarding Obamacare, and repeated on more than 20 different occasions: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.  Period.” None of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” even made a peep about that whopper!

I believe what we have here is just more of the well documented “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” except this strain of the disease has made its way into the “biased, liberal, fake news media,” exposing them for being even more biased, more liberal, and more fake than ever given credit for before.

 

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 my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

obama and mexican kids

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑