“A picture is worth a thousand words.” In these cases…, maybe more.

Here are some of the famous pictures that reflect our American history and reflect events that have changed our history.

aoc history

… although this picture is not one of those pictures!

Let’s continue…

nine eleven

09/11/2001.  Some pictures don’t need any description.

The assassination of John F. Kennedy, the ensuing investigation, and all of the questions surrounding the assassination, have remained for over 50 years.

1963 – President John F. Kennedy and his wife Jacqueline in Dallas, Texas, moments before he was fatally shot.

jfk 2

President Kennedy is hit.

jfk 3

A frantic Jackie scrambles onto the back of the car.

jfk

The murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of The President, by Jack Ruby, in the Dallas jail.

jfk 4

In 1986 The Space Shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after lift-off, shocking our nation and the world.

challenger 2

challenger

Neil Armstrong takes the first step onto the moon’s surface, July 20, 1969.  He and Buzz Aldrin were the first humans to land on the moon.  A smart phone, like most of us have, has thousands of times the computing power of the computers on Apollo 11.

“That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” – Neil Armstrong, as he stepped onto the surface of the moon.

moon landing

This picture, taken in New York City, known as “The Kiss,” represents the unbridled joy by all Americans that World War II had finally come to an end.

the kiss

On August 14, 1945, President Harry Truman announced from the White House that the Japanese were unconditionally surrendering.  As soon as the news was announced, spontaneous celebrations erupted across the United States.

But as memorable as the arrival of victory over Japan was, the day was bittersweet for the many Americans whose loved ones would not be returning home.  More than 400,000 Americans had given their lives in World War II, and America would never be the same.

In 2016, Donald Trump shocked the entire country by pulling off the upset of the century, while not only winning the presidency, but doing so convincingly.  The “forgotten men and women” in our country rose up and made their votes count.  Politics and the way we view “the media” in our country would never be the same.

trump elected

trump wins landslide

I hope you enjoyed this trip through some of our history as Americans, as seen through the camera lens.

Please let me know if you agree with the events I’ve chosen, if you feel I missed any, or if you you’d just like to reminisce or leave a comment.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

Reading George Washington’s Farewell Address, on the floor of the Senate, is an annual tradition.

Do you recall what “party” George Washington represented?  Was he a Democrat?  Was he a Republican?  I believe he was neither.  I believe he would only classify himself as an “American.”

He was “the father” of of our nation, and he loved it like it was his child.  Let’s be clear about this…, there would be no United States of America if it were not for George Washington.

President Washington’s integrity and patriotism were unquestioned.  His only desire was to do what was best for his country and its citizens.  It is in this regard that I feel President Trump has a lot in common with our country’s first president.

George washington 3

We all know that President Trump is technically a Republican, but do you really think his party affiliation is paramount to him?  I don’t think so.  I don’t think he’d have any problem being recognized as a Democrat, or working with Democrats, if they were joining with him in trying to do what was best for the country or We the People.

According to Chad Pergram of Fox News, “Senator Deb Fischer, R-Nebraska, will follow an annual tradition when the Senate next convenes.  The first order of business is for Fischer to read George Washington’s Farewell Address aloud on the floor.”

I wonder how many Senators will be there in the Senate to actually hear the reading?  Pergram says, “Most senators will be jetting back to the Beltway after the Presidents’ Day recess, not yet on the ground to hear Fischer’s presentation.”

George Washington’s complete Farewell Address is 32 handwritten pages.  I encourage you to read it sometime.  Below you’ll find sections of his address which I have selected for one reason or another, along with my own comments.

george washington farewell address

President Washington begins by addressing his “Friends and fellow citizens,”

“The period for a new election of a citizen, to administer the executive government of the United States, being not far distant, and the time actually arrived, when your thoughts must be employed designating the person, who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprize you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.”

Washington’s second term is up, but he does not want another term, although he would almost unanimously be voted in.

“The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize.”

Washington observes that the American people value and hold dear their new, unique, form of government.

“But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.”

President Washington warns, however, that our government and our freedoms will come under attack from within our own country and from the outside, and that we must “cherish” and protect our way of life.

“The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.”

Washington says we should be proud to be called an American.  He also points out what they all had in common at the time.  This definitely is not the case anymore with most “Americans.”

“All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.”

Washington warns here of the dangers of “factions” and “enterprising minorities” putting their wants ahead of what is best for the nation as a whole.

george washington 1

“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.”

“This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.”

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.”

Are the results of putting party ahead of country not deteriorating our liberty on a daily basis?

“Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”

Washington advises us to keep our eyes open, to be aware of those who would threaten our liberty and our country, and to fight against them and their efforts.

“It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

“There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”

We have to stay on top of these people who attempt to sway our fellow citizens into forgetting why our country was formed and pretend to have a better way, while trying to drive a wedge between our citizens and between our citizens and their country.

“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.”

No matter what other foreign governments may say, they do not have our best interests at heart unless it benefits them.  We must put America first and guard her interests.

georg Washington 2

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith.  Here let us stop.”

“Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”

“In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course, which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself, that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

George Washington, United States – September 17, 1796

Source: “The Independent Chronicle” newspaper, September 26, 1796.

 

You have to love George Washington.  He was a great leader and an eloquent communicator.

I wonder what he would do with “Twitter” today?

What would he have to say about “the fake news?”

What would he say about this growing support of Socialism and “open borders?”

I believe President Trump is representing President Washington’s beliefs quite well for the time being.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Has Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “dream” come true?

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

I sincerely believe that time has arrived.

You’re always going to have exceptions to everything, but for the most part, I think Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “dream” has become reality.

I believe today, for the most part, people are judged by their actions and by what they say rather than the color of their skin.

A problem we face today, however, is that some really don’t want to be judged by their character.  They prefer to use the color of their skin as an excuse or as a ticket to special considerations and allowances.

They prefer to use the color of their skin as a wedge between people of their skin color and people of other colors, either for fame, power, money or a combination of the three.

They say, “The meaning of King’s monumental quote is more complex today than in 1963 because ‘the unconscious signals have changed,’ according to the historian Taylor Branch, author of the acclaimed trilogy “America in the King Years.”

What does that mean?

It sounds to me like the people who would prefer to use the color of their skin for their own purposes are trying to tell us that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s words mean something other than what anyone who understands English understands them to mean.

It’s a form of racial “spin” or racial propaganda.

Bernice King doubts that her father would really seek to ignore differences.

“When he talked about the ‘beloved community,’ he talked about everyone bringing their gifts, their talents, their cultural experiences,” she says. “We live in a society where we may have differences, of course, but we learn to celebrate these differences.”

Yes we do celebrate cultural differences, Bernice, but excuse me if I reiterate that your father’s words, in this case, were words of inclusion and racial “blindness,” just like the “blindness” of justice.

It’s obvious that Bernice King makes her living off of her daddy’s coattails.  It’s definitely not in her best interests to acknowledge any level of racial progress.

“Unfortunately race in American history has been one area in which Americans kid themselves and pretend to be fair-minded when they really are not,” says Taylor Branch, whose new book is “The King Years: Historic Moments in the Civil Rights Movement.”

Well, I suppose we all can’t be as enlightened as you Mr. Branch.  But how do portend to know what “Americans” are supposedly kidding themselves about?  You’re obviously making quite a nice living off of your books about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Like I mentioned before, money is one of the reasons people keep preferring to drive wedges between the races.

The quote is like the Declaration of Independence, says Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank that studies race and ethnicity. In years past, he says, America may have needed to grow into the words, but today they must be obeyed to the letter.

“The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal,” says Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity. “Nobody thinks it doesn’t really mean what it says…”  “King gave a brilliant and moving quotation, and I think it says we should not be treating people differently on the basis of skin color.”

Many others agree. King’s quote has become a staple of conservative belief that “judged by the color of their skin” includes things such as unique appeals to certain voter groups, reserving government contracts for Hispanic-owned businesses, seeking more non-white corporate executives, or admitting black students to college with lower test scores.

In the latest issue of the Weekly Standard magazine, the quote appears in the lead of a book review titled “The Price Was High: Affirmative Action and the Betrayal of a Colorblind Society.”

“Considering race as a factor in affirmative action keeps the wounds of slavery and Jim Crow ‘sore and festering.’ It encourages beneficiaries to rely on ethnicity rather than self-improvement to get ahead,” wrote the author, George Leef.

The RightWingNews.com blog added, “The idea that everyone should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin” in their list of “25 People, Places and Things Liberals Love to Hate.”

“Conservatives feel they have embraced that quote completely. They are the embodiment of that quote but get no credit for doing it,” says the author of the article, John Hawkins. “Liberals like the idea of the quote because it’s the most famous thing Martin Luther King said, but they left the principles behind the quote behind a long time ago.”

 

Thank you to CBS News for contributing to this article.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

MLK light and darkness

 

“The state of our Union is…?”

The state of our Union is…, at a crossroads.

Not only is the state of our Union at a crossroads, The State of the Union address itself is at a crossroads.

Speaker of the House, California democrat, Nancy Pelosi, has chosen to throw all congressional tradition and decency to the wayside and disinvite President Trump to give his State of the Union address in the House of Representatives.

She weakly, and unsupported by the truth, suggested that, “it may be difficult to provide security for the event because of the partial government shutdown.”

“Sadly, given the security concerns and unless the government re-opens this week, I suggest that we work together to determine another suitable date after government has re-opened for this address or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union address in writing to Congress on January 29,” Pelosi wrote.

A senior Homeland Security official later told Fox News, however, that they have been preparing for months for the State of the Union event [and that they had no security concerns as referred to by Mrs. Pelosi].

“We are ready,” the official said. “Despite the fact members of the Secret Service are not being paid, the protective mission has not changed.”

According to Alex Pappas and John Roberts of Fox News, “White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley accused Pelosi of ‘trying to play politics with that venue.’ He also dinged the speaker for suggesting it may be difficult to provide security for the event because of the partial government shutdown.”

‘“If the Secret Service can protect the president of the United States on a trip to Iraq, chances are they can protect the American president in the halls of Congress,’ Gidley said.”

“A spokesman for Pelosi did not return a request for comment.  Neither did the House Sergeant at Arms office.”

According to History.House.gov:

“Including President Donald J. Trump’s 2018 address, there have been a total of 95 in-person Annual Messages/State of the Union Addresses.

“Since President Woodrow Wilson’s 1913 address, there have been a total of 83 in-person addresses.”

“The formal basis for the State of the Union Address is from the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3, Clause 1, ‘The President shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.’”

sotu supremes w zzzzzs 2

Never one to let the Constitution get in her way, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has strongly urged the president to delay the speech or submit it in writing amid the government shutdown fight.

Be careful Nancy, you may get what you’re wishing for!

In my opinion, it seems like you are actually doing President Trump a big favor, Nancy.  Not only are you making yourself and your party look petty and foolish, you are providing President Trump with an excuse to give his State of the Union address somewhere other than the stodgy, old, predictable halls of Congress.

Wouldn’t it be awesome to see The President give his address to a crowd of 20-30 thousand supporters in a rally type of atmosphere in say Columbus, Ohio, or in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, or perhaps in Jacksonville, Florida?

Is that what you want Nancy?

Somehow I don’t think so.

But I sure would!

I can hear the standing room only crowd now, screaming, “BUILD THAT WALL! BUILD THAT WALL! BUILD THAT WALL!” “USA, USA, USA” “FOUR MORE YEARS!” “LOCK HER UP! and that “oldie but a goodie,”  “CNN SUCKS!”  Maybe we’ll even hear President Trump’s newest slogan, “BUILD A WALL & CRIME WILL FALL!”

It’s a beautiful thing.

Have you heard the old saying, “Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer,” Nancy?

Letting President Trump out of Washington D.C. would be doing him and all of his supporters a big favor.

It would nice a nice change of pace to watch The State of the Union address without having to see all of those grouchy democrats sitting on their hands, falling asleep, and just generally being disrespectful.

“At the moment, however, President Trump intends to be at the Capitol next Tuesday to deliver his speech as scheduled, sources said.  White House officials told Fox News they essentially are preparing for two tracks for next week’s speech. The preferred track is an address, as per custom, at the Capitol.  The second track is a backup plan for a speech outside of Washington, D.C.”

In the end, whether or not the speech is welcomed on the House floor is up to comrade Pelosi.

The way it stands now, welcome or not, President Trump has a “get out of jail free” card and he should take his “show” on the road!

Winning!

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

trump state of the union

 

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the translated letter:

Special Importance Committee on State Security of the USSR

14.05.1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV Moscow

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

Comrade Y.V. Andropov,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We await instructions.

President of the committee,

Viktor Chebrikov

 

Well what do you think about that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what is the point of this article?

Here’s the point:

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

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

That’s the point.

Whose side are these guys on anyway?

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

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

ted kennedy

 

“Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; all else is mere opinion.” – Democritus (An ancient Greek philosopher, prior to Socrates)

With that, here are my favorite movie quotes.

“You’re gonna need a bigger boat.” – Jaws, 1975

“I love the smell of napalm in the morning.” – Apocalypse Now, 1979

“Yippie-ki-yay, motherf—er!” – Die Hard, 1988

“Houston, we have a problem.” – Apollo 13, 1995

“The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.” – Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, 1982

“What we have here is a failure to communicate.” – Cool Hand Luke, 1967

harrison-ford-movie-quotes_indiana-jones-1

“You’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya punk!?” – Dirty Harry, 1971

“Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.” – The Wizard of Oz, 1939

“After all, tomorrow is another day.” – Gone With the Wind, 1939

“Every time a bell rings, an angel gets his wings.” – It’s a Wonderful Life, 1946

“Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” – Gone With the Wind, 1939

“Life is tough.  It’s tougher if you’re stupid.” – Sands of Iwo Jima

“Worse?! How could things get any worse? Take a look around you, Ellen! We’re at the threshold of hell!! – National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, 1989

“It’s classified. I could tell you, but then I’d have to kill you.” – Top Gun, 1986

“Go ahead, make my day.” – Sudden Impact, 1983

“Did your parents have any children that lived? – Full Metal Jacket, 1987

“You don’t have to have a patch on your arm to have honor.” – A Few Good Men, 1992

“You’ll get nothing and like it!” – Caddyshack, 1980

“Why Johnny Ringo, you look like somebody just walked over your grave.” – Tombstone, 1993

“So you’re telling me there’s a chance!” – Dumb and Dumber, 1994

“Sorry folks, the park’s closed. The moose out front shoulda told ya. – National Lampoon’s Vacation, 1983

airplane-jpg

Lastly, I’m going to leave you with a short conversation between Joe Dirt and his new found friend, Kicking Wing, who owns a fireworks stand out in the desert, from the movie Joe Dirt, 2001:

Joe: “So you’re gonna tell me that you don’t have no black cats, roman candles, or screaming mimis?”

Kicking Wing: “No.”

Joe: “Oh come on, man. You don’t got no lady fingers, fuzz buttles, snicker bombs, church burners, finger blasters, gut busters, zippity do das, or crap flappers?”

Kicking Wing: “No, I don’t.”

Joe: “You’re gonna stand there, owning a fireworks stand, and tell me you don’t have no whistling bungholes, no spleen splitters, whisker biscuits, honkey lighters, hüsker düs, hüsker don’ts, cherry bombs, nipsy daisers, with or without the scooter stick…or one single whistling kitty chaser?”

Kicking Wing: “No…, because snakes and sparklers are the only ones I like.”

Joe: “Well that might be your problem. It’s not what you like, it’s the consumer!”

 

I hope you enjoyed my favorite movie quotes.  Let me know a few of your favorites!

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.

shut your mouth

 

 

 

“It’s the end of the world as we know it…, and I feel fine.” 

The lyrics are from the song by the same title by R.E.M.

The impending “collapse of civilization” was predicted at the recent UN climate summit, due to global warming.

Please forgive me if I’m just a little skeptical, but since when I was growing up, back in the 70’s, global cooling was all the rage, which was supposed to usher in a new “ice age!”

The truth is these scientists have no idea what they’re talking about.  We see it every day.  One day this certain food or drink will cause your early death, according to the “experts.”  Then a few months later we hear this food or drink is actually good for you.  Then it changes back again!  What has changed?  Can’t they make up their mind?

The same thing applies to these weather experts.  They pretend to know something about the weather, when they’re dealing with only 135 years of recorded temperature data, and many years less of any other kind of weather data.

According to History.com, “Scientists have recorded five significant ice ages throughout the Earth’s history: the Huronian (2.4-2.1 billion years ago), Cryogenian (850-635 million years ago), Andean-Saharan (460-430 mya), Karoo (360-260 mya) and Quaternary (2.6 mya-present). Approximately a dozen major glaciations have occurred over the past 1 million years, the largest of which peaked 650,000 years ago and lasted for 50,000 years. The most recent glaciation period, often known simply as the “Ice Age,” reached peak conditions some 18,000 years ago before giving way about 11,700 years ago.”

Interesting.  But you can’t find any information about scientists identifying any periods of intense global warming.

Hmmm.  I wonder why that is?

Also, how exactly did all of this previous “climate change” occur without any human behavior to blame?

We’ve only got 5,000-6,000 years of human history altogether on the planet, compared to the age of the Earth, which scientists claim is about 4.5 billion years (4,500,000,000 years).  Based on those numbers, human existence on this planet is like a blink of an eye over the course of a person’s life.  Who’s to say what is and what is not “normal” for our planet, or if there is anything that could be considered “normal” at all?

Just some information and questions to ponder on this subject.

Let’s get back to the impending “collapse of civilization.”

Sir David Attenborough spoke at a UN Climate Summit in Poland, warning that “climate change could lead to the collapse of civilization if action isn’t taken.”

Chances are, you’ve probably heard Sir David Attenborough narrate documentaries like “Planet Earth” and “Blue Planet” for the BBC.

Oh, I get it!  So it’s like he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!  He’s not really a climatologist, but he plays one on TV!!!

“Right now, we’re facing a man-made disaster of global scale,” Attenborough told delegates from almost 200 nations. “Our greatest threat in thousands of years: climate change.  If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”

According to Brandon Specktor, Senior Writer for “LiveScience,” “Attenborough was chosen to speak at the summit as part of the U.N.’s new ‘people’s seat’ initiative, which encouraged citizens of the world to share their personal messages and videos explaining how climate change has already affected their lives. Several of these messages were shared as part of Attenborough’s speech today; they included footage of people standing in front of the ashen remains of their homes, which had been incinerated by wildfires.”

This was obviously caused by global warming!  We have never seen anyone’s home burn down because of a wildfire before global warming was being touted in the 1990’s.

“The world’s people have spoken,” Attenborough said.  “Their message is clear. Time is running out.  They want you, the decision-makers, to act now.  Leaders of the world, you must lead,” Attenborough concluded. “The continuation of our civilizations and the natural world upon which we depend is in your hands.”

Bravo!  Sir Attenborough, Bravo!

Your speech was sufficiently dramatic, as could be expected.

Now let’s deal with reality.

Exactly what do you want us to do that is going to make one bit of a damn difference Mister Sir David Attenborough?

Do you want us to shut down coal fired power plants all around the world that provide electricity for our daily use?

Do you want us to shut down all factories that produce any sort of pollution?

Do you want us all to park our cars in our garages and never use them again?

Do you want to ground all of the jets we use for travel because they pollute the air?

Do you want to halt all of the truck and rail transportation of our goods?

Do you want us all to stop using natural gas to heat our homes, heat our water and heat our food?

What is it exactly that you want us to do?  What “actions” to you want us to take?

Do you want us to go back to living like we did in The Middle Ages?

I think that’s what you’re saying you want.  Either that or you are very naïve about the whole subject, or you are just very disingenuous.

I’m willing to wager that very few of these “people who have spoken,” who you refer to, would be willing to give up many of their luxuries of modern life.

We’re all in favor of sacrifice to “save the planet,” as long as it’s someone else doing the sacrificing.

 

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.

climate-change-global-warming-cooling-its-called-weather-chalkboard

 

Who you calling a wimp…, wimp?

What I’m referring to here is back in 1987, Newsweek published a story about the then Vice President seeking his own White House bid titled, “George Bush: Fighting the ‘Wimp Factor,” referring to George Herbert Walker Bush, who would become the 41st President of The United States.

That was back in the day when Republicans were afraid of how they would be perceived by the media and didn’t fight back against them.

That was back in the day (the pre-FOX News days) when “the media” could get away with pretty much whatever they wanted.  They had the power to mold the country’s take on any topic or situation.

Well…, those days are gone my friends, and I’m officially calling out former Newsweek editor Evan Thomas!

This offending magazine hit the newsstands when George H. W. Bush’s granddaughter, Jenna, was only 6 years old, but it ended up leaving a lasting impression on her.

Jenna Bush Hager would go on to say that, Newsweek’s cover calling George H.W. Bush [her grandfather] a “wimp” confused her.  “He was a hero in our eyes.”

And rightly so.

“When we lived here in D.C., when we were in elementary school, I have this vivid memory of going to the grocery store, I was with my mom, and saw the cover of Newsweek that said ‘Wimp’ and it had a picture of my grandpa next to it.  It confused me, it confused us, because he was the antithesis of a wimp,” Bush Hager said on NBC’s “Today” show.

“He was somebody that showed us that family matters.  He never was looking at work when we were next to him.  He was present.  He played with us.  He made us feel special,” Bush Hager continued. “He spoke softly and he didn’t speak about himself, he was humble.  But why did that have to equate to being a wimp?  It didn’t to us.  He was our hero.”

The United States formally entered World War II December 8, 1941, following Japan’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.  Six months later, George Bush enlisted into the U.S. Navy immediately after he graduated from High School.

He became a naval aviator in 10 months.

He was commissioned as an ensign on June 9, 1943, just three days before his 19th birthday, which made him one of the youngest aviators in the history of the Navy.

Initially, his squadron participated in the victorious Battle of the Philippine Sea, one of the largest air battles of World War II.

Bush was promoted to lieutenant (junior grade) on August 1, 1944, and his aircraft carrier, The San Jacinto, commenced operations against the Japanese in the Bonin Islands.  He piloted one of the four Grumman TBM Avengers that attacked the Japanese installations on Chichijima on September 2, 1944.  His aircraft was hit by flak during the attack, but Bush successfully released bombs and scored several hits anyway. With his engine ablaze, he flew several miles from the island, where he and his crew bailed out.  Bush waited for four hours in a small raft before he was rescued by the submarine USS Finback.

Through 1944, he flew 58 combat missions for which he received the Distinguished Flying Cross, three Air Medals, and the Presidential Unit Citation.

After Bush received his military discharge, he enrolled at Yale University.  He earned an undergraduate degree in economics on an accelerated program that enabled him to graduate in two and a half years, rather than the usual four.  He also captained the Yale baseball team and played in the first two College World Series.

He moved his family to West Texas where he entered the oil business, worked his way up the ladder, eventually owning his own oil drilling company, and becoming a millionaire by the age of 40.

He was the United States Ambassador to The United Nations.

He served as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

He served as Vice President for two terms under Ronald Reagan.

He was elected the 41st President of The United States, where Bush defeated Michael Dukakis in the Electoral College by a total of 426 to 111, losing only nine states.

As President, he oversaw the fall of The Berlin Wall and the fall of The Soviet Union.

He also oversaw Operation Desert Storm, the first Gulf War, in Iraq.  Inarguably one of the most successful military operations in our country’s history.

I would say that this is the resume’ of a man who was anything but a wimp.

According to Brian Flood of Fox News, “It seems that the man responsible for calling Bush a wimp agrees with Bush Hager now, even if it took him decades to admit it.  Earlier this week, former Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said he regretted using the word “wimp” to describe H.W. Bush.

Thomas, in an op-ed for Yahoo, wrote that he edited the story and added the word “wimp” despite objections from the story’s reporter.

“But the clear implication of the cover story…, was that Bush somehow lacked the inner fortitude to lead the free world,” he wrote.  “How wrong we were.  As the 41st president, Bush was anything but a wimp.”

As usual, the eventual retraction of a story or a statement does not match the impact or effect of the original story or statement.

Thank you Mr. Thomas for waiting until the poor man was dead to admit you were wrong, and the statement was a mistake.  But in all actuality, you knew you were wrong at the time as well.  You just didn’t care, and you weren’t going to let facts get in the way of your desired narrative.  You were just doing your job as a member of the “biased, liberal, fake news media,” while attempting to cast George H. W. Bush in a negative light.

Mr. Evan Welling Thomas III, now there’s a wimpy sounding name for you, deserves to be called out for being the “biased, liberal, fake news media” propagandist that he was, and is.  He is also a proud member in a family where his grandfather, Norman Thomas, was a six-time Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.

That figures.  Such a proud leftist, and wimpy, heritage.

I’m sorry that George’s granddaughter, Jenna, was subjected to this character assignation perpetrated by Evan Thomas and Newsweek (which I like to call “WeakNews”).

Like they might say in a sports locker room, “Mr. Thomas…, you couldn’t hold George’s jockstrap!

 

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.

Bush-Newsweek

 

“Gobble, Gobble, Gobble?” What’s the true story of “Thanksgiving?”

The “Thanksgiving” that The Pilgrims celebrated back in 1621 (almost 400 years ago) may not have been exactly what many of us believe it was, but it was probably pretty close.  Let’s take a look.

The Pilgrims’ first year in this new land had been a very difficult one to say the least, and the ones who were still there were just truly thankful to be alive.  They were also very thankful to the Native American people who helped them to survive in this new land, and of course they were thankful to God as well.

Almost a year earlier the first landing party had arrived at the site of what later became the settlement of Plymouth.  During that first winter, the Mayflower colonists suffered greatly.  45 out of 102 immigrants died that winter.  The following March, the first formal contact occurred with the Indians (or Native Americans).

(Note: All the way back to 1492, and the days of Christopher Columbus, the Native Americans here were referred to as “Indians” because Columbus believed he had landed in India, which was his real target destination at the time.)

Both sides managed to establish a formal treaty of peace. This treaty ensured that each people would not bring harm to the other, and that they would come to each other’s aid in a time of war.

By November 1621, only 53 pilgrims were alive to celebrate the harvest feast which modern Americans now know as “The First Thanksgiving.” Of the original 18 adult women, 13 died the first winter while another died in May. Only four adult women were left alive for the first Thanksgiving.

This first “Thanksgiving” was really a celebration of survival, a show of goodwill and a way for the settlers to show their appreciation to their Native American neighbors, by sharing a feast with them after their harvest, and before the onset of another winter.

When we think about “Thanksgiving,” it’s all about the food!  Turkey, gravy, potatoes, sweet potatoes, corn, stuffing, cranberry sauce, hot rolls, and pumpkin pie are what most of us would feel is required of a real “Thanksgiving” dinner.  Different families may have certain additional items that have been added to the tradition as well.  But what did the Pilgrims and their guests have to eat at that first “Thanksgiving?”

Well, the Pilgrims and their guests didn’t have corn, apples, potatoes or even cranberries. No one knows for sure if they even had turkey, although they did eat turkey from time to time.  Ducks or geese would have been more plentiful this time of year.  The only food we know they had for sure was deer (venison).

The feast between The Pilgrims and the Native American Wampanoag people probably also contained fish, lobster, eels, clams, turnips, berries, pumpkin, and squash.

You didn’t hear any moms or dads yelling at the kids to use their fork either.  Forks weren’t even invented yet!

So where did we get the idea from that you have to have turkey and cranberry sauce and such on Thanksgiving?  It was because the people of the Victorian Era prepared Thanksgiving that way.

thanksgiving dinner

The Victorian era of history was the period of Queen Victoria’s reign over Britain from 1837 until she died in January of 1901. It was a long period of peace, prosperity, and refined social behavior.  Thanksgiving became a national holiday, beginning in 1863, when Abraham Lincoln issued his presidential Thanksgiving proclamations.  There were actually two of them, one to celebrate Thanksgiving in August, and a second one in November.  Before Lincoln, Americans outside New England did not usually celebrate the holiday.

So there you have it, and remember to say “please” before you ask someone to “pass the eels” this Thanksgiving!

I hope you and your family have a wonderful Thanksgiving!

 

Note: Thank you to Rick Shenkman, of the History News Network, 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 my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

thanksgiving

 

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑