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.

November 30, 2018 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 28^th 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 100^th 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!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 29, 2018 1

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!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 28, 2018 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.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 26, 2018 2

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.)

“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.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 20, 2018 0

Just another “crippling and catastrophic failure,” brought to you by the previous Obama administration.

Oh how the news of these massively botched operations differs depending on what party is in office.

In this instance, President Obama and the democrats were presiding over this, to put it nicely, “crap storm.”

This is also why we’re not hearing anything about it until five years after it happened.

If President Trump had been in office, we would be seeing Congressional hearings, another special investigator, and wall-to-wall coverage by the “biased, liberal, fake news media.”

So what exactly are we talking about here?

Well, in a nutshell, the CIA’s undercover communications network suffered a “catastrophic” compromise back in 2013, and it all started in Iran.

What exactly is meant by “catastrophic?”

According to Zach Dorfman and Jenna McLaughlin of Yahoo News, “[At the time,] countless numbers of CIA officers scrambled to contain a disaster of global proportions: a compromise of the agency’s internet-based covert communications system used to interact with its informants in dark corners around the world. Teams of CIA experts worked feverishly to take down and reconfigure the websites secretly used for these communications; others managed operations to quickly spirit assets to safety and oversaw other forms of triage.

‘“When this was going on, it was all that mattered,’ said one former intelligence community official. The situation was ‘catastrophic,’ said another former senior intelligence official.”

Between 2009 and 2013, the U.S. intelligence community experienced “crippling intelligence failures” (“experiencing crippling failures” has become a hallmark of the Obama administration) related to their secret internet-based communications system. This system was a key means for remote messaging between CIA officers and their sources on the ground around the world.

The previously unreported global problem originated in Iran and spread to other countries.

I would say that “previously unreported” is an understatement. I believe the words, “suppressed,” “quelled,” or even “concealed” would be better choices here.

To make matters worse, the problems with the network were “left unrepaired, despite warnings about what was happening, until more than two dozen sources died in China in 2011 and 2012 as a result,” according to former intelligence and national security officials.

Dorfman and McLaughlin continue, saying, “The disaster ensnared every corner of the national security bureaucracy, from multiple intelligence agencies, congressional intelligence committees and independent contractors to internal government watchdogs, forcing a slow-moving, complex government machine to grapple with the deadly dangers of emerging technologies.”

Yahoo News’ information regarding this global CIA communications failure is based on conversations with eleven former U.S. intelligence and government officials directly familiar with the matter who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive operations.

“More than just a question of a single failure, the fiasco illustrates a breakdown that was never properly addressed. The government’s inability to address the communication system’s insecurities until after sources were rolled up in China was disastrous. ‘We’re still dealing with the fallout,’ said one former national security official. ‘Dozens of people around the world were killed because of this.’”

All of this is in addition to the 2012 Benghazi attack, which resulted in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith. CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were also killed in the melee, while ten others were wounded.

Despite persistent accusations against President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice, ten investigations, six by Republican-controlled congressional committees, did not find that they or any other high-ranking Obama administration officials had acted improperly.

Is it any wonder that this whole mess was kept on the “down low” by “the swamp?”

I’m sure, if any investigations are held regarding this debacle, the results would be the same: They would say they didn’t find that “they or any other high-ranking Obama administration officials had acted improperly.”

How about “irresponsibly?”

How about “carelessly?”

How about “stupidly?”

How about “politically” and “selfishly?”

How about “without concern for the lives of their subordinates?”

Ouch.

The whole intelligence failure started in Iran back in 2009, when the Obama administration announced the discovery of a secret Iranian underground enrichment facility.

This is what happens when you conduct foreign policy through the “biased, liberal, fake news media.”

“Angered about the breach in their security and secrecy, the Iranians went on a concerted hunt, looking for foreign spies,” said one of the former senior intelligence officials.

The ensuing pressure on the CIA’s communications system led to its demise. “It was not built to withstand the sophisticated counterintelligence efforts of a state actor like China or Iran.”

By 2010, however, it appears that Iran had begun to identify CIA agents. And by 2011, Iranian authorities dismantled a CIA spy network in that country, said seven former U.S. intelligence officials. Indeed, in May 2011, Iranian intelligence officials announced publicly that they had broken up a ring of 30 CIA spies. U.S. officials later confirmed the breach.

Iran executed some of the CIA informants and imprisoned others in an intelligence setback that one of the former officials described as “incredibly damaging.”

These events hampered the CIA’s capacity to collect intelligence in Iran at a critical time, just as Tehran was forging ahead with its nuclear program.

“It’s not clear whether China and Iran cooperated, but the former officials said the communications systems used in both countries were similar. The two governments may have broken the system independently. But Iranian, Chinese and Russian officials were engaged in senior-level communications on cyber issues around this time.”

The CIA has declined to comment.

Former officials said the fallout from the compromises were likely global in scope, potentially endangering all CIA sources that used some version of this internet-based system worldwide.

As Iran was making fast inroads into the CIA’s covert communications system, back in Washington an internal complaint by a government contractor warning officials about precisely what was happening was winding its way through a bureaucratically slow appeals system.

Again, according to Dorfman and McLaughlin, “In 2008, well before the Iranians had arrested any agents, a defense contractor named John Reidy, whose job it was to identify, contact and manage human sources for the CIA in Iran, had already sounded an alarm about a ‘massive intelligence failure’ having to do with ‘communications’” with sources. According to Reidy’s publicly available but heavily redacted whistleblower disclosure, by 2010 he said he was told that the ‘nightmare scenario’ he had warned about regarding the secret communications platform had, in fact, occurred.”

Reidy refused to discuss his case with Yahoo News.

By November of 2011, Reidy was fired because of what his superiors said were “conflicts of interest.”

In his 2014 appeal to the intelligence community inspector general, Reidy noted that CIA agents were “in danger,” and that the “CIA is aware of this.” “The design and maintenance of the system is flawed.”

Reidy’s complaint wasn’t fully addressed for many years.

“Can you imagine how different this whole story would’ve turned out if the CIA [inspector general] had acted on Reidy’s warnings instead of going after him?” said Kel McClanahan, Reidy’s attorney. “Can you imagine how different this whole story would’ve turned out if the congressional oversight committees had done oversight instead of taking CIA’s word that he was just a troublemaker?”

Sound familiar?

“Irvin McCullough, a national security analyst with the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit that works with whistleblowers, put the issue in even starker terms. ‘This is one of the most catastrophic intelligence failures since September 11th,’ he said. ‘And the CIA punished the person who brought the problem to light.’”

A spokesperson for the Senate Intelligence Committee has declined to comment.

The House Intelligence Committee did not respond to requests for comments either.

Hmmm, that’s odd.

Please note that the words “Senate” and “Intelligence” are typically mutually exclusive (meaning they don’t go together)!

One of the central concerns among those familiar with the scope of the breakdown is the institutions responsible for it were never held accountable.

Even several years after the breach, the concern within the intelligence community is accountability.

“People will say, ‘I went to the inspector general and it didn’t work; I went elsewhere and it didn’t work.’ People will see it as a game. It will lead to corruption, and it will lead to espionage. When people see that the system is corrupt, it affects everything.”

“In the end,” said the former official, “our biggest insider threat is our own institution.”

So who oversaw this whole mess at the time? Besides Barack Obama, at the top of course, we had Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, then John Kerry as Secretary of State 2013-2016. Leon Panetta (a longtime Clinton flunky) was the CIA Director 2009-2011, followed by General David Petraeus 2011-2012, and finally followed by John “Benedict Arnold” Brennan, who was the CIA Director 2012-2017.

As I was reviewing the article from Yahoo News, by Dorfman and McLaughlin, I was struck by the fact that over the course of a 3,260 word article, the name “Panetta” was never mentioned, the name “Petraeus” was never mentioned, nor was the name “Brennan.” The names “Clinton” and “Kerry” were not mentioned either. The name “Obama” was mentioned only once, and that was only regarding the “Obama administration” announcement of the discovery of a secret Iranian underground enrichment facility. No mention at all regarding this whole CIA communication fiasco.

As was mentioned before, it is all about accountability, and more specifically a lack thereof when it comes democrats and “the swamp” in general.

I guess looking back, we could make the claim they were all too busy playing their little political power games and spying on American citizens to worry about their real responsibilities.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 16, 2018 0

Where are your manners Jim Acosta? Who do you think you are?

After an unprofessional performance at a White House press conference earlier this week, CNN’s Chief White House Correspondent, Jim Acosta, has been denied access to The White House “until further notice.”

White House Press Secretary, Sarah Sanders, announced yesterday that CNN’s Jim Acosta had his press pass suspended by The White House.

“I’ve just been denied entrance to the WH,” Acosta cried via a tweet Wednesday night. “Secret Service just informed me I cannot enter the WH grounds…”

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders confirmed Acosta’s tweet in a later statement, claiming the suspension of his press credentials stemmed from his “placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern.” She called the behavior “absolutely unacceptable.”

Is Jim Acosta related to Bill Clinton in any way? Just wondering.

The CNN reporter, during a news conference at the White House earlier Wednesday, got into a heated debate with Trump after he asked the president about the migrant caravan. “Honestly, I think you should let me run the country and you run CNN,” the president said.

Acosta tried to ask the President another question before a female White House aide walked over to him.

President Trump then told him, “That’s enough!”

Acosta continued to try to talk as the intern was seen trying to take the microphone from his hand. She grabbed the microphone but Acosta wouldn’t give it up and there was contact between the two and he actually chopped down on her arm. If you get a chance to actually watch the video, I’m sure you’ll agree that it is quite obvious.

I’m sorry Jim, the “fake news” may try and convince us we’re not seeing what we’re seeing, but we did see it, and it is what it is.

In a later statement, Sanders said, “President Trump believes in a free press and expects and welcomes tough questions of him and his Administration.”

“Contrary to CNN’s assertions,” Sanders continued, “there is no greater demonstration of the President’s support for a free press than the event he held today. Only they would attack the President for not being supportive of a free press in the midst of him taking 68 questions from 35 different reporters over the course of an hour and a half, including several from the reporter in question.”

“The fact that CNN is proud of the way their employee behaved is not only disgusting, it is an example of their outrageous disregard for everyone, including young women, who work in this Administration,” Sanders added.

CNN said Jim Acosta has “our full support.”

Of course he has their support, he’s their poster boy for obnoxious and biased “reporting.”

The White House Correspondents’ Association in a statement called the move “unacceptable,” and urged the White House to “immediately reverse this weak and misguided action.”

Isn’t the White House Correspondents’ Association the same group that hires lame, supposed, comedians to bash President Trump at their pretentious little annual get together to pat each other on the back? Why yes it is. That would explain their “weak and misguided” response!

“I tell you what, CNN should be ashamed of itself having you work for them,” Trump told Acosta. “The way you treat Sarah Huckabee [Sanders] is horrible. And the way you treat other people is horrible. You shouldn’t treat people that way.”

You’re entirely correct Mr. President.

“Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength.” – Edmund Burke

“Ideological differences are no excuse for rudeness.” – Judith S. Martin

“A polite enemy is just as difficult to discredit, as a rude friend is to protect.” – Bryant McGill

If we look back at the eight years of the Obama administration, reporters would never dream of taking the tone with him like they do with you. In addition, The Obama era press secretaries were Robert Gibbs, Jay Carney and Josh Earnest. None of them were forced to take the abuse and disrespect that Sarah Sanders has had to endure on a daily basis.

In fact, during the Obama years, the only reporters who ever asked President Obama or his Press Secretary a remotely challenging question were Major Garrett and Ed Henry, of Fox News, and even then the questions were asked in a respectful manner.

The White House intern who attempted to take the microphone from Acosta eventually handed it off to Peter Alexander, of NBC News. He called Acosta a “diligent reporter who busts his butt,” to which Trump shot back: “Well, I’m not a big fan of yours either, to be honest.”

Nice one Mr. President.

I’m a big fan of yours though!

WINNING!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 9, 2018 1

I guess you could say the 2018 Midterm Election was a “win-win” situation.

There definitely was no “blue wave” sited in the 2018 Midterm election results last night, although, at last count, the Democrats did pick-up 26 seats in the House of Representatives and regained control there. They needed at least 23 to accomplish this.

Regarding the Senate, I think you would have to say that there was a bit of a “red wave” siting. The Republicans not only did not lose seats, but at last count, they managed to pick-up 3 seats, and that number will likely end up being 4 or even 5.

To put this performance by the Republicans in perspective, let’s look at the results of the midterm election, after President Obama’s first two years, in 2010.

In the midterm of election of 2010, the Democrat Party suffered massive defeats in many national and state level elections, with many seats switching to Republican Party control. Although the President’s party usually loses congressional, statewide and local seats in midterm elections, the 2010 midterm election season featured some of the biggest losses since the Great Depression. The Republican Party gained 63 seats in the House of Representatives, recapturing the majority, and making it the largest seat change since 1948 and the largest for any midterm election since the 1938 midterm elections. The Republicans also gained 6 seats in the U.S. Senate.

So, overall, I think the Republicans can fairly say this election was quite successful, while the Democrats should feel like it was a bit disappointing, even though they managed to regain control of The House.

In my estimation, the “biggest losers” of the midterm elections were the Obamas, Hollywood celebrities in general and these major democrat contributors.

Despite numerous appearances in Georgia and Florida by Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey and others, both states were swept by the Republicans.

Barack Obama fancies himself as the most popular president of all time, and Michelle thinks she is some uncontested “voice of reason” in America. They have obviously overestimated their popularity and influence. During Barack’s last appearances, he looked like he was rode hard and put away wet, and his voice sounded like he looked.

President Trump, on the other hand, worked tirelessly over that last month, and his popularity and energy definitely did make a big difference for races with national implications, like those in the Senate and various governorships.

Apparently most Americans are not buying that President Trump is the incarnation of evil that democrats and the “biased, liberal, fake news media” would have us believe.

Pop Singer Taylor Swift’s support was rebuked in the Tennessee Senate race, and Beto O’Rourke could not buy the Senate seat in Texas. Over $70 million was spent in the Texas Senate race, making it the most expensive in U.S. history. Between Texas, Georgia and Florida alone, these rich democrat investors wasted over $150 million of their money on their preferred candidates.

In the end, the Democrats won and the Republicans won.

The Republicans’ win was just a little more impressive.

President Trump’s rally song, by The Rolling Stones, is pretty apropos here.

“You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.”

In 2018, both parties got what they needed, but not all that they wanted.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 7, 2018 0

Midterm Election Day 2018 is finally here, and it’s time to vote!

As we prepare to go out and cast our votes today, remember this:

Liberal politician and “biased, liberal, fake news media” election predictions are like a-holes. They all have one, and they all stink!

All we have to do is look at the snapshot of the tweet from The (failing) New York Times (at the bottom of the blog) to remind ourselves how accurate these polls are nowadays.

Do you remember: “Donald Trump has no path to victory.”

Then around midnight, on election night 2016, we heard, “Hillary Clinton has no path to victory.”

Hmmm. It’s funny how that works!

It ain’t over till it’s over!

We’ve seen them all these past few months, predicting a “blue wave” and touting all of their, what we know are, skewed poll figures.

Well, it’s time to vote now.

The time for predictions and polling are over.

Historically, the party NOT in power in The White House (the democrats this year) pick up quite a few seats in The House of Representatives and The Senate.

Add to that the fact that republicans lost roughly three times the amount of incumbent representatives than the democrats did, and we can see that the republicans are facing a significant challenge here.

On the other hand, President Trump has been “barnstorming” and rallying all over the country in a midterm election blitz, reminiscent of the final days of his presidential campaign.

The republicans also have, what has recently been called, “the strongest economy in US history” to run on.

I feel that this election is also going to be a referendum on our country’s borders, and how we approach immigration. Do we want “open borders?” The American people see that enormous “caravan” of potential illegal immigrants getting closer to our southern border every day. I guess we’ll see.

Let’s just recap some of the democrat party positions. What do the democrats want?:

Democrats want to double down and even triple down on nationalized health care. Reinstating ObamaCare isn’t even acceptable for the democrats at this point. They want complete government control of health care, at a cost that would double or triple our annual budget.

Of course, this would mean higher taxes, and when I say “higher taxes” I mean an ungodly increase of our taxes.

Democrats want “open borders.” “Open borders” means anyone can come walking into our country from anywhere, at any time, and they assume all of the rights and benefits of an American citizen immediately upon entry…, including the right to vote!

There are a myriad of problems associated with this philosophy. As President Trump says, “A country without borders is not a country.” This concept sounds good while we’re sitting around, holding hands and singing “We Are the World,” but it’s not feasible when we’re talking about national security, spending budgets, allocations of benefits, national economic planning and maintenance, our election system. Not to mention our Constitution.

Democrats want to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). If democrats are promoting “open borders,” it only makes sense that they want to get rid of the law enforcement agency that deals with immigration violators and people bringing illegal drugs and other items into our country.

So, in addition to allowing anyone to walk into our country from anywhere, at any time, democrats want to allow anything and everything to be brought into our country without question.

Democrats want to change our economic system from capitalism to socialism. Socialism calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work for themselves, but for the good of the whole. Everything that people produce is in essence a social product, and everyone is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

Please note that our country, the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, was built through capitalism. Also please note that socialism, or its close relative communism, has never been successful where tried around the world.

“The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” – Former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher

Democrats want to stifle our freedom of thought. We see evidence of this every day. We see it when conservatives are verbally and physically harassed out in public. We see it on college campuses, where a diversity of thought is feared and looked down upon (this should be the last place where this should occur). We see it in the entertainment industry, where entertainers are shunned and criticized for independent thought, and the rest of us are inundated by their biased renderings on daily and nightly basis.

Democrats want to return to an America that puts global interests before the interests of our own country. Democrats are chomping at the bit to destabilize our economy and return the manufacturing and trading advantages back to our global neighbors.

Remember, their “guidebook” is “Rules for Radicals,” a book dedicated to “Lucifer’” by the way, by Saul Alinsky. Alinsky is Hillary Clinton’s mentor, and Barack Obama was a follower as well. Realizing this helps us to make more sense out of their actions.

The goal of the democrats, and Alinsky’s mission was, and is, to “incite constant struggle and agitation so that the oppressive ‘system’ would eventually be brought to its knees.” The core of Alinsky’s belief is destruction. Destruction of the “system” that allows a disparity of wealth (please see the prior section on socialism).

Democrats want our economy and freedoms to bow at the altar of “climate change, “global Warming,” whatever you want to call it. Liberals in America have successfully brainwashed many Americans, and others around the world, into believing the Earth is burning up, and the villain is carbon dioxide, the gas that makes all living things grow, by the way. It doesn’t take much to see their “climate change religion” is really based on fiction, not fact.

But this plays right into their globalist intentions, and would further raise the cost of food and energy for no rational reason.

Democrats have spent billions of taxpayer dollars financing a junk, “green,” science industry and worthless renewable energy schemes that just don’t work in the real world.

Democrats/liberals believe that our National Anthem is somehow “racist,” that our Flag is “offensive,” and that our history and heritage should be erased because it is “offensive” to some as well. Liberals in America are offended by so much that it is hard to keep track of. It’s a sad way to go through life, and I wish them well in overcoming their affliction.

This democrat “to do” list should be frightening enough, but it doesn’t even include the topics of abortion, our gun rights and the 2nd amendment, and the two-tiered justice system for members of “the swamp” and then everyone else.

Whose side are the liberals/democrats on anyway?!

Is all of this really what you want to see happen?

If it is, then go ahead and vote for the democrats.

If not, then vote RED, vote for the republicans on your ballot.

Vote RED to keep our economy rolling.

Vote RED because you like America being respected around the world again.

Vote RED because you like our President putting America first regarding international trade deals and foreign policy.

Vote RED because you want to see Americans rights, safety and benefits put first before illegal immigrant rights, safety and benefits.

I’m hoping and looking for a “BIG RED WAVE’ tonight!

I am confident the republicans will retain control of The Senate, and if they can retain control of The House, by even one vote, I’ll consider that a success as well.

Stay tuned for my blog tomorrow for all of the election results!

Oh, and hey, by the way…, whatever happened to the Robert Mueller midterm election surprise indictments regarding all of that supposed Russian collusion? If Mueller had ANYTHING, ANYTHING AT ALL, you know it would have come out prior to the midterms. It is definitely time for the democrats, Mueller and Mueller’s team to give it up and go get some real jobs.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 6, 2018 0

You know the old saying: “If you can’t beat ‘em, silence ‘em!”

So you don’t remember it quite like that? Me neither. But then again I’m not a democrat/liberal.

If you’re a democrat/liberal, the ends justify the means. There is no concern about being fair…, just winning. If they can’t beat you fair and square, they’ll change the rules, change the playing field, or just have you taken out of the game.

In this instance, we’re referring to cable news ratings. Specifically between the three major cable news networks: CNN, Fox News and MSNBC.

According to Mark Joyella, who is a contributor for Forbes.com, “Fox News Crushes The Cable News Competition In October Ratings.”

Just to be clear, Fox News channel routinely “crushes” CNN and MSNBC, and it’s been that way for years now. What we’re really talking about in October is an annihilation, or a complete domination.

Most of the time, Fox News Channel’s competitors can point to something and say, “we beat them here” or “we beat them there. It could be just an hour slot during the day or a special weekend show. Earlier this year MSNBC’s prime-time “star” Rachel Maddow turned in her show’s best week ever, and the liberal media were all popping the champagne. But that was then and this is now.

Joyella confessed that, “Fox News wiped the floor with CNN and MSNBC in October, beating the combined ratings of the two networks in prime-time, and delivering wall-to-wall wins across all key day parts. Fox News also saw its ratings climb in October from the same month a year ago, as its competition, with few exceptions, saw significant viewership drops.”

See what I mean? Complete and utter domination.

For the seventh month in a row, Fox News host Sean Hannity (the unrivaled King of Cable News) was the most-watched host in cable news, with a total audience of 3.495 million.

Fox News then continued by running the table with the top-five most-watched shows in prime, with Hannity followed by Tucker Carlson (3.231 million), Laura Ingraham (2.973 million), The Five (2.838 million) and Special Report with Bret Baier (2.668 million).

Several Fox News shows, including The Ingraham Angle, The Story with Martha MacCallum, Outnumbered with Harris Faulkner, The Daily Briefing with Dana Perino and Fox News at Night with Shannon Bream had all-time high ratings in October.

Overall, Fox News viewership was up +25 percent in October (in total viewers). Among viewers 25-54 years old, the key demographic coveted by advertisers, Fox grew compared to October 2017 by +13 percent, while CNN was down -11 percent and MSNBC was down -19 percent.

MSNBC had several of its key shows, including Morning Joe, All In with Chris Hayes, The Rachel Maddow Show, The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell and The 11th Hour with Brian Williams return their lowest-rated month of 2018 in October.

MSNBC was largely uncontested for second place overall (If you ain’t first, you’re last!), beating CNN among total viewers in prime time and total day viewership for the 13th consecutive month.

You can infer whatever you want from these numbers, but in any case it isn’t good for the state of “biased, liberal, fake news.”

So, how are the liberals and the “biased, liberal, fake news media” responding?

They are sicking the liberal media group “Media Matters” on Fox News, in an attempt to mount negative pressure on their advertisers!

According to Brian Stelter at CNN Business, “Media Matters’ president Angelo Carusone, who previously led boycotts against Glenn Beck and others, said on Monday that Fox’s programming ‘is only getting more extreme and volatile,’ and that’s why he is taking action now.”

“‘Fox News’ never-ending focus on demonizing political opponents and front-line communities, echoing [President] Trump and framing the struggle against these groups as an urgent matter of life or death, makes the network an increasingly bad business decision for advertisers,’ Carusone said.”

“Liberal critics of Fox, like Carusone, have pointed a finger directly at Fox, accusing the media company of inflaming tensions across the country.”

“Neera Tanden, the president of the liberal Center for American Progress, tweeted on Sunday, ‘It really is time to boycott Fox News advertisers. Who has the list? I’m game.’”

“Media Matters has been moving in this direction for a while. The group challenged Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity’s advertisers in the past.”

“In his statement on Monday, Carusone named ‘major Fox News advertisers’ like Expedia, McDonalds and Capital One. Media Matters also published a list of other advertisers on its website.

Carusone urged the companies to ‘listen to their customers’ and ‘consider suspending their relationship with Fox News until the network makes meaningful changes to curb its propagandistic narratives that intentionally spread disinformation and incentivize violence.’”

These accusations are typical for “the swamp.” They charge others with doing exactly what they are guilty of doing in an effort to deflect attention from themselves and shut down and silence anyone who disagrees with them or anyone who challenges their liberal narrative.

In a statement to CNN, Marianne Gambelli, the president of ad sales for Fox News and Fox Business, said “we cannot and will not allow voices to be censored by agenda-driven intimidation efforts.”

“Media Matters continues to turn a blind eye to every television network but Fox News since it’s the only outlet that doesn’t subscribe to their extreme left-wing political agenda,” she said.

Fox News has quite a bit of experience fending off advertiser pressure campaigns like this, however

Sean Hannity has been outspoken in his opposition to boycotts of all kinds.

“EVERY American should see the danger of politically motivated efforts and boycotts to silence speech they disagree with,” he said.

Hang in there FOX! Without you we would be at the mercy of the “biased, liberal, fake news media,” and their uncontested “fake news” would sadly become just “the news” again, and our country would be worse off because of it.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 2, 2018 0

Category: fake news

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

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

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

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

Liar, liar…, pants on…, fire?

Just another “crippling and catastrophic failure,” brought to you by the previous Obama administration.

Where are your manners Jim Acosta? Who do you think you are?

I guess you could say the 2018 Midterm Election was a “win-win” situation.

Midterm Election Day 2018 is finally here, and it’s time to vote!

You know the old saying: “If you can’t beat ‘em, silence ‘em!”

Subscribe to Blog via Email