Category: Conservative

“Nothing unmasks a man [or a woman] like his [or her] use of power.” – Elbert Hubbard, American writer

Our favorite House Representative-elect, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has not even taken her oath of office yet, or spent one minute officially on her new job yet, and she is already threatening others with her newly gained powers (at least in her mind) to be.

Way to go Alexandria!  We have an overachiever here!  She’s just a little over anxious to flex her socialist ruling class muscle, however!

So what’s the story here?

Being the social media maven that she is, Ocasio-Cortez managed to get into an “Instagram” tussle with our favorite “junior,” Donald Trump, Jr.

It all started when Don Jr. posted a meme to his “Instagram” account showing Ocasio-Cortez and President Donald Trump debating each other, with Ocasio-Cortez asking, “Why are you afraid of a socialist economy?” and The President replying, “Because Americans want to walk their dogs, not eat them.”

Ha!

For those not familiar with social media lingo, a “meme” (pronounced MEEM) is a picture with a statement or funny phrase added to it.  Many of the pictures that I attach to my blogs would be considered memes.

Anyway, so Don Jr. posts this meme with the added commentary, “funny cuz’ it’s true.”

The meme is drawing a connection between Ocasio-Cortez’s political beliefs and reports coming out of Venezuela that dogs, cats and zoo animals are being eaten by residents due to the country’s corruption and its socialist policies that have failed, the Washington Post has reported.

Ocasio-Cortez then responded via Twitter, “I have noticed that Junior here has a habit of posting nonsense about me whenever the Mueller investigation heats up.”

She then additionally tweeted, “Please, keep it coming Jr – it’s definitely a “very, very large brain” idea to troll a member of a body that will have subpoena power in a month.  Have fun!”

Well, after seeing this response, supporters of The President, friends of Don Jr. and conservatives in general, didn’t waste any time accusing her of threatening to improperly use subpoena power to retaliate against The President and his son because of his son’s behavior.

“A sitting congresswoman has no right to use her power to threaten someone. @DonaldJTrumpJr has rights, and @Ocasio2018 threatened them because he “trolled” her.  That’s inexcusable,” tweeted conservative journalist Justin T. Haskins.

“Are you threatening to use your power as a federal official to subpoena anyone who mocks or otherwise disagrees with you on the Internet?” tweeted Sean Davis (@seanmdav).

“I just want to be clear: Did a member-elect of Congress just threaten a private citizen with a subpoena over a meme?  There is no way in hell that this can be legal,” conservative commentator Candace Owens tweeted.

“Did you just threaten to subpoena someone for criticizing you?  As a lawyer and former prosecutor I find this deeply troubling,” Kimberly Guilfoyle tweeted.

Ocasio-Cortez should be aware that, per page 150 of the House Ethics Manual, “Members…are not to take or withhold any official action on the basis of the campaign contributions or support of the involved individuals, or their partisan affiliation. Members and staff are likewise prohibited from threatening punitive action on the basis of such considerations.” Ocasio-Cortez does seemingly threaten to possibly subpoena Donald Trump Jr. when she takes office in a month.  This would be a violation of the House Ethics Manual, which of course only actually applies to Republicans.

There were other “tweeters” who came to her defense, however.

“Only a poorly educated right-winger with a tenuous grasp of language would ever perceive this as some sort of ‘threat,’” tweeted Ajohms1956.

“The comments here are hilarious and a little disturbing.  People either cannot read or they’re reading what their minds want to read. You said you’ll be a member of a body that has subpoena power. You DID NOT say that YOU will have subpoena power,” tweeted @chris_newsome.

It really gets kind of boring hearing these liberals questioning peoples’ level of education and intelligence whenever these other people don’t agree with them.  It’s also quite comical when they try to tell you what you were supposed to see or hear, according to them, as opposed to what you actually did see or hear, as if we needed their help interpreting the input from our senses!

After social media “blew up” over this whole fiasco, Ocasio-Cortez, who apparently now took the time to do a little homework, posted a tweet responding to people questioning her intent by “walking back” her prior statements and reminding them all how subpoena power actually works.

Oh yes Alexandria, please “clarify” your remarks, put them in the “proper context” for us uneducated dolts, and educate us all now!

“For the GOP crying that this is a ‘threat’ – I don’t have power to subpoena anybody,” she tweeted.  “Congress as a body, GOP included, has the power. No indiv. member can issue a subpoena unless they are a Chair (which, as a freshman, I can assure you I will not be). Also must be under purview.”

Impressive!  You can read, write and recite from your little handbook there, with the help of at least one of your “aides” no doubt!

Your performance here, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, is just what we were all expecting from you:  Typically uninformed, unencumbered Constitutionally, and promoting socialistic nonsense.

I have to say, you may not be the brightest candle on the cake, and your pro-socialism stances undermine our perception of your intelligence, but you are genuine and you are not the typical “baffle them with bs” politician.  For that I do give you some credit.

This will definitely be an entertaining next couple of years!

Keep those twitter accounts humming!

 

Thanks for contributing to this article to Maxine Shen for DailyMail.com and Liz Wolfe of “The Federalist.”

 

“Power attracts the corruptible.” – Frank Herbert, American writer

“Nothing destroys authority more than the unequal and untimely interchange of power stretched too far and relaxed too much.” – Sir Francis Bacon

“The stupidity of men [and women] always invites the insolence of power.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

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.

socialist-ocasio-cortez-trump

 

0

BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!

With all due respect Mr. President, and I am saying “with all due respect,” it is time to draw a line in the sand and make your stand.

President Trump met Democrat leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi in the Oval office yesterday, December 11, 2018, to discuss border security, the wall, and continuing to fund the government.

The President allowed the press to attend the beginning of the meeting, and the cameras were on, as The President said, “If we don’t have border security, we’ll shut down the government.”

President Trump repeatedly told Mrs. Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, that what she’s proposing would not pass the Senate.

“If it’s not good [on] border security, I won’t take it,” President Trump quickly replied.

Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer repeatedly urged The President to take the meeting private, (all the more reason not to) but not before he declared he’s “proud to shut down the government for border security” and will “take the mantle.”

Prior to the meeting, and earlier in the morning, President Trump threatened to have the military “build the remaining sections” of the wall if Congress doesn’t deliver the funding.

As President Trump began discussing the details of the negotiations, with Vice President Mike Pence also in attendance, Mrs. Pelosi complained, “I don’t think you should have a debate in front of the press.” And at another point, Mr. Schumer added, “Let’s debate in private.”

I’m sure there was a reason President Trump wanted at least a portion of the discussion out in the open for all to see.  I’m guessing The President wanted the two Democrat leaders, and democrats in general, to have to own their positions in a way that could not be confused or re-translated later.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, they say.

“Elections have consequences, Mr. President,” Schumer interjected, undoubtedly hoping to bolster his position.

“And that’s why the country is doing so well,” The President responded.

Mr. Schumer then challenged President Trump over his boasting that Republicans kept control of the Senate.  “When a president brags that he’s won Indiana and North Dakota, he’s in real trouble,” Schumer offered.

Apparently Mr. Schumer has a lack of respect for the states and the people from the states of Indiana and North Dakota, as he seems to denigrate the value of these states.

Congress last week temporarily averted a partial shutdown amid the funeral services for the late President George H.W. Bush, pushing the new deadline to Dec. 21.

President Trump wants $5 billion for the wall project, while Democrats are offering $1.3 billion for border security, which doesn’t include an actual wall.

Mrs. Pelosi said she and many other Democrats consider the wall “immoral, ineffective and expensive.”

Speaking for conservatives, I think we have seen with the recent caravan and those people waiting in Tijuana, Mexico, how effective an actual wall is and how necessary it is given our current immigration laws.

Mr. Schumer said Democrats want to work with President Trump to avert a shutdown, but said, “Money for border security should not include the concrete wall President Trump has envisioned.  Instead, the money should be used for fencing and technology that experts say is appropriate.”

Yes, Mr. Schumer, we are all aware that you can always find “experts” to support any position you may take or any belief you may have.

President Trump has said that Congress should provide all the money he wants for the wall and called illegal immigration a “threat to the well-being of every American community.”

Even though the Republicans will pick-up a couple of seats in the Senate next year, they currently have 51 votes.  Sixty votes are required in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, thus effectively blocking a proposal.

Let’s remember that during President Trump’s campaign for president, at every jam packed rally, in the dozens of states he visited, he promoted building a wall and the people in attendance chanted, “BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!”

If ever a president had a mandate, based on an election, to do anything, it is President Trump’s mandate to “build the wall.”

“We the People” have waited long enough.

We want our wall!

And yes, Mr. Schumer, elections do have consequences, and don’t you dare try and throw your weak midterms in our faces.  Especially you, as your party lost even more seats in the Senate!

You want The President and us to “own” shutting the government down in order to get our wall?  Fine!  We will proudly own the shutdown, and we don’t care if it’s shut down until the 2020 election!

“We the People” wanted a wall on our southern border and we elected Donald Trump to build that wall.

I would further respectfully suggest that President Trump address the nation, similar to the way President Reagan did on several occasions, bypassing the “biased, liberal, fake news media” “filter,” and make your case for the wall directly to the American people, putting some pressure on their representatives.

“Maybe Poker’s just not your game, Chuckie.  I know, let’s have a spelling contest!” – adapted quote from the movie “Tombstone.”

 

Thanks to Alex Pappas and Chad Pergram of Fox News, and Judson Berger 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 the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

trump pelosi schumer wall mtg

 

0

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

1

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

 

1

Extra, Extra, read all about it!  Former President Obama says, “A woman or candidate of color could beat Trump!”

So, “A woman or candidate of color could beat Trump?”  Really Mr. Obama?  “A woman or candidate of color could beat Trump?”  That’s amazing!  I never would have thought it was possible!

This statement isn’t racist or sexist at all, is it?  How about a gay man or a lesbian?  What about someone who is disabled?  Would they have a chance as well?

Barack Obama talked about the choice facing Democrats in a podcast interview with his old buddy and political strategist, David Axelrod, at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics.

What a wonderfully diverse institute of thought that must be!

Mr. Axelrod, as it turns out, is actually the institute’s director!

Wow!  It just keeps getting better!

Mr. Axelrod is also a commentator for CNN in his spare time!

Oh, well, then you know he’s gotta be good!

In the podcast, Axelrod asked Mr. Obama about, “those who say the party would make a mistake in selecting another woman or candidate of color as its presidential nominee.”

Neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Axelrod mentioned any names, regarding these beliefs, of course.

Michael Avenatti, everyone’s favorite Trump hating, Kavanaugh bashing, self-proclaimed potential democrat candidate for president in 2020 and self-righteous attorney, said in an interview with Time Magazine last month that he believes “a white man would have the best chance at winning [the presidential election of 2020].”

“I think it better be a white male,” said Mr. Avenatti, who is openly considering a White House bid. “When you have a white male making the arguments, they carry more weight.  Should they carry more weight?  Absolutely not.  But do they?  Yes.”

After some of his comments were called into question, Avenatti quickly cleared up all of the concern and confusion by explaining he was referring to “the sexism and bigotry that ‘other’ white males engage in,” not him, of course.

It is almost comical what these liberals are allowed to get away with.  Are they really listening to themselves?  A conservative would have been hung out to dry seven ways ‘till Sunday for daring to utter these insensitive words.

In fact, shortly after making his enlightened comments, Mr. Avenatti was arrested on suspicion of felony domestic violence, after his girlfriend told police he abused her at his Los Angeles apartment following an argument.

You really couldn’t make this stuff up.

Not to be outdone, another potential democrat candidate for president in 2020, Bernie Sanders, decided to put his foot in his mouth during an interview this month with “The Daily Beast,” in which he said that there are “a lot of white folks out there in Florida and Georgia who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American.”

Ah yes, Bernie, do tell about all of those rare “unicorns” in Florida and Georgia “who are not necessarily racist!”  Tell us about all of those people there who are uncomfortable voting for African-Americans as well.  Not like the people in your own well educated and noble state of Vermont!

A Sanders spokesman later clarified in a statement to NPR (a clarification we would all hear, of course, since everyone listens to NPR) that the senator was speaking about racist attacks made by ‘others’ against both [African-American] candidates [in Florida and Georgia].

Ugh.

Later in the Axelrod interview, Mr. Obama cited his own 2008 victory as well as Trump’s in 2016 as examples of how generalizations about the chances of certain candidates could prove to be wrong.

He did, however, contrast his own view of America with what he described as that of the current president.

Oh boy, here we go….

“I think what’s unique about America is our aspirations to be a large, successful, multiracial, multicultural, multiethnic, multi-religious, pluralistic democracy,” Mr. Obama said.

“Do you think that’s President Trump’s vision?”  Mr. Axelrod asked.

Obama responded without hesitation, saying, “No.  Obviously not.  We have contrasting visions about what America is.  And that’s self-apparent.”

I would respond that I feel you are off base a bit there, President Obama.

I would say that your vision for America and President Trump’s vision for America are quite similar.  Similar except for that “successful” part.

You weren’t very good at that “successful” part.

 

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.

obummer

 

0

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

 

0

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

1

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

 

0

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

0

“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” and so would Ben Carson’s name if he were a liberal.

According to Breanna Edwards, for Essence Magazine, “The Detroit School Board voted 6-1 last week to rename Benjamin Carson High School of Science and Medicine.”

She goes on to say, “There was a time when Ben Carson was highly revered.  His contribution to medicine as a neurosurgeon cannot be denied.  But ever since Carson found himself working with President Donald Trump (and opening his mouth about politics in general), that admiration has largely fallen by the wayside.”

(So let me get this straight; Ben Carson was chosen by The President to be a part of his Cabinet and head The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (something Detroit has no need of, I say sarcastically), one of only 15 executive departments…, and this somehow detracted from his accomplishments and lessened his admiration?)

(Let’s do a quick review of Ben Carson’s story.  According to Biography.com, Ben Carson was born in Detroit, Michigan!!! His mother, though under-educated herself, pushed her sons to read and believe in themselves.  Carson went from being a poor student to receiving academic honors and eventually attending medical school.  As a doctor, he became director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital at age 33 and earned fame for his groundbreaking work separating conjoined twins.  In 2000, the Library of Congress selected Carson as one of its “Living Legends.” The following year, CNN and Time magazine named Carson as one of the nation’s 20 foremost physicians and scientists. In 2006, he received the Spingarn Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the NAACP. In February 2008, President George W. Bush awarded Carson the Ford’s Theatre Lincoln Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  He retired from medicine in 2013, and two years later he entered politics, and made a bid to become the Republican candidate for U.S. president.  After Donald Trump was elected president, he nominated Carson to become the secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development which, of course, he later became. That’s a pretty impressive resume’, and an impressive life worth celebrating in all communities, but especially in the African American community.)

So what did the Detroit school board do?  They voted last week to rename the Benjamin Carson High School of Science And Medicine.

Brilliant.  We certainly don’t want Black children, or any children for that matter, emulating someone like Ben Carson!  Why, they might end up being self-sufficient and actually take responsibility for themselves!  You know…, all of that “conservative” and “racist” ideology!

Hey!  Maybe I can be of some help here!  Let me respectfully submit some suggestions to the “honorable” Detroit School Board for potential school names.

How about the “Maxine Waters School for the Cognitively Challenged?”

Or, “Michelle Obamas Culinary Arts for Public Schools Academy?”

“Cory Booker’s Spartacus School of Self Defense?”

“President Barack Hussein Obama’s Islamic Preparatory School?”

“Sheila Jackson Lee’s School of Revisionist History?”

“Elijah Cummings Alzheimer’s Research Institute?”

Or maybe “Frederica Wilson’s School of Fashion?”

“The high school isn’t the only building that is being slated for a possible rename, however.  Earlier this year the panel approved a new policy to commemorate, name and rename school buildings and facilities, giving the board the option to change a school’s name to honor ‘individuals who have made a significant contribution to the enhancement of education.’”

The Detroit News writes: “The board also can select another name under circumstances that include when a building is newly built or redesigned, where the name no longer reflects the current student population or ‘the community of the geographic area where the school is located requests a name change that more closely aligns with the history of the locality, or information newly discovered about the current name of the school is negative in nature.’”

Among those who want Carson’s name removed from the high school, however, is LaMar Lemmons, a board member, who claimed that residents “don’t support the [Trump] administration.”

(I think Mr. Lemmons needs to be reminded that President Trump won the state of Michigan in the 2016 election, and it had been almost 30 years since a republican had won the state.)

Last week, Lemmons told the Washington Post, that having Carson’s name on the school was “synonymous with having Trump’s name on our school in blackface.”

Carson, he contended, “is doing Trump’s bidding, and he has adversely affected the African American community in Detroit as well as the nation with his housing policies.”

(Yes, Mr. Lemmons, terribly adverse effects, like the lowest Black unemployment rate in history!  That’s the lowest Black unemployment rate EVER in the history of our country! And regarding his housing policies, what President Trump basically did was lower the amount of federal money, by 9%, being used to subsidize states and cities who expect the entire country to pay for their foolishness, like Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Chicago and Detroit.)

“And he’s allied himself with a president that says he is a white nationalist and sends dog whistles that even the deaf can hear,” Lemmons added.  (Or “dumb,” in your case, Mr. Lemmons!  You do get credit for using the “biased, liberal, fake news media” buzzword, “Dog whistle, however!  In my estimation, it is the Detroit School Board who are sending out “dog whistles” regarding prejudices against freedom of thought, freedom of political ideology, and the freedom of racial associations.  They are also sending out the message that you really cannot be successful or exceptional in the eyes of the Black community unless you bow down to the liberal democrat masters along the way.)

The board voted 6-1 to change the name, but that doesn’t mean that it’s going to happen.  The district is expected to have community meetings and issue surveys for each site to figure out if there is indeed any interest in renaming any facilities, and also to figure out possible new names. The results will be reported by the superintendent, who will make a final recommendation to the board.

So Benjamin Carson High School of Science and Medicine will still be, for now, at least until next school year.

Hey, didn’t Detroit have to file for bankruptcy back in 2013?  Well, yes they did.  And actually, it was the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history.  This is what the democrats have contributed to the legacy of the city of Detroit, Michigan.

Maybe their city government should be more concerned with spending their money wisely and paying their bills as opposed to playing political games, regarding what name a school has, while running down one of the few good men that children, and the people, in Detroit have to look up to.

 

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.

An Obama Voting Atheist Called Ben Carson a "Moron" for His Faithben carson meme

2

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑