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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

areva martin and david webb

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The good guys 1, fake news 0.

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

Let’s get a few things clear here:

One, there was no real “independent panel.”

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

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

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

No kidding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

da rather fake news

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the translated letter:

Special Importance Committee on State Security of the USSR

14.05.1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV Moscow

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

Comrade Y.V. Andropov,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We await instructions.

President of the committee,

Viktor Chebrikov

 

Well what do you think about that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what is the point of this article?

Here’s the point:

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

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

That’s the point.

Whose side are these guys on anyway?

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

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

ted kennedy

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would call that quite significant!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just sayin’.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

nytimes-fake_news-all_the_news

 

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

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

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) January 10, 2019

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

Per Jim Acosta’s CNN broadcast:

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

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

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

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

Acosta then ended his transmission.

Ha!

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

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

And that’s the best kind!

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

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

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

— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) January 10, 2019

 

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

— Brad Parscale (@parscale) January 10, 2019

 

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

— Hogan Gidley (@hogangidley45) January 10, 2019

 

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

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

 

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

— Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) January 10, 2019

 

Yes, thank you Jim.

Thank you for your unwitting support.

WINNING!

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

jim acosta at the border

 

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

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

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

Maybe I need to reconsider my thoughts on Cher!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Winning!

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

cher turn back time

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

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

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

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

schumer pelosi

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

schumer and pelosi

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

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

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

“Oh, Chuckie!”

You really can’t make this stuff up.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

pelosi schumer

 

 

 

Crisis?  What crisis?

A “crisis” (from the Greek κρίσις – krisis) is any event that is going (or is expected) to lead to an unstable and dangerous situation affecting an individual, group, community, or whole society.

Fact: More Americans will die from drugs this year than were killed in the entire Vietnam War.

Fact: Our southern border with Mexico is a pipeline that permits vast quantities of illegal drugs, including meth, heroin, cocaine and fentanyl to enter our country illegally.

Fact: Every week, 300 of our citizens are killed by heroin alone.

Fact: 90 percent of the heroin in our country came across our southern border.

Fact: Last month, 20,000 migrant children were illegally brought into the United States.  These children are used as human pawns by vicious smugglers and ruthless gangs.

Fact:  60,000 unaccompanied children crossed the border last year, a 25 percent increase.

Fact: One in three women are sexually assaulted on the dangerous trek up through Mexico. Women and children are the biggest victims by far of our broken system.

Fact: The cost of dealing with the effects of illegal drugs exceeds $500 billion dollars a year in the United States.

Facts according to a study released in 2011 by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) reported on incarcerations, arrests and costs of criminal immigrants (gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf):

The number of criminal illegal immigrants in federal prisons in 2010 was about 55,000; the number incarcerated in state prison systems and local jails was approximately 296,000 for the year 2009.

Based on the GAO’s sample of criminal immigrants, it’s estimated that the study population of these 249,000 criminals had actually been previously arrested around 1.7 million times, averaging about seven arrests per person. That translated into a half-million drug related offenses, 70,000 sexual offenses, 213,000 assaults, 125,000 arrests for larceny/theft and 25,000 homicides.

The makeup of those criminal immigrants incarcerated in federal prisons: 68 percent were citizens of Mexico and almost 90 percent were from one of seven Latin American countries: Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Cuba and the Dominican Republic.

The GAO study states the cost to incarcerate these criminal illegal immigrants in federal prisons and for federal reimbursements to states and localities ranged from about $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion annually, 2005-2009.

According to Victor Davis Hanson, a scholar at the Hoover Institution, the 30,000 illegal immigrants behind bars in California alone costs the state $1 billion annually. In addition, the state spends another $10 billion annually in entitlements for illegal immigrants.

And remember, all of these numbers are from 7-8 years ago.  We can only expect that these numbers have increased on a yearly basis, and are quite worse by now.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “In 2013, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) freed 36,007 convicted criminal aliens from detention who were awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings. Many of the 36,007 convicted criminal aliens freed from ICE custody had multiple convictions including: 193 homicide convictions; 426 sexual assault convictions; 303 kidnapping convictions; 1,075 aggravated assault convictions; 1,160 stolen vehicle convictions; 9,187 dangerous drug convictions; 16,070 drunk or drugged driving convictions; and 303 flight escape convictions.” (cis.org/ICE-Document-Details-36000-Criminal-Aliens-Release-in-2013)

U.S. Census data shows that the overall population of immigrants is at an all-time high of 41.3 million. As many as 8 million immigrants have entered the United States since President Obama came into office, including 2.5 million illegally, either by crossing the border or overstaying their visa.

So, do we have a crisis on our hands?

Remember, a “crisis” is any event that is going (or is expected) to lead to an unstable and dangerous situation affecting an individual, group, community, or whole society.

Any reasonable person would have to say the answer to that question is “YES,” we have a national security, humanitarian, social, economic and public safety crisis on our hands, and President Trump has stated as much.

“Over the last several years, I’ve met with dozens of families whose loved ones were stolen by illegal immigration,” President Trump added. I’ve held the hands of the weeping mothers and embraced the grief-stricken fathers.  So sad.  So terrible.  I will never forget the pain in their eyes, the tremble in their voices, or the sadness gripping their souls. How much more American blood must be shed before Congress does its job?”

After President Trump’s address to the nation, in which he asked for a paltry $5.7 billion dollars help secure our southern border with some kind of barrier or wall, Senator Charles Schumer from New York and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi gave the Democrat response on the issue.

Pelosi and Schumer, basically condemned Trump’s words and what they called his “obsession” with building a border wall.

“President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage, must stop manufacturing a crisis and must reopen the government,” Pelosi said.

Manufacturing a crisis?

Manufacturing a crisis?

Have you been listening, Nancy?  Have you looked at the numbers?  Have you seen the pictures of “the caravan” in Tijuana, Mexico, and at the border?

President Trump has brought manufacturing back to America, but he doesn’t need to do any manufacturing here.  The facts are out there for everyone to plainly see.

“Much of what we have heard from President Trump throughout this senseless shutdown has been full of misinformation and even malice,” Pelosi, standing next to Schumer, charged. “The President has chosen fear.  We want to start with the facts.”

No Nancy, the President has not chosen fear, he has chosen to address the reality and the seriousness of the situation, as opposed to kicking this political football down the road once more.

“The fact is: On the very first day of this Congress, House Democrats passed Senate Republican legislation to re-open government and fund smart, effective border security solutions,” Pelosi said, referring to bills that did not include funding for Trump’s border wall.

The “smart, effective border security solutions” that you and Chuck support, Nancy, are all good, but they are all reactive and not proactive.  Drones and other types of electronic surveillance will produce nice pictures of illegal immigrants running across the border, but they are not going to stop anybody.  A physical barrier or wall will.  Walls work.

“But, the president is rejecting these bipartisan bills which would re-open government, over his obsession with forcing American taxpayers to waste billions of dollars on an expensive and ineffective wall, a wall he always promised Mexico would pay for,” Pelosi continued.

The President, during his address, emphasized that the wall “would very quickly pay for itself,” and added that “the wall will also be paid for, indirectly, by the great new trade deal we have made with Mexico.”

Schumer and Pelosi seemed to think that federal employees missing a paycheck or two during the shutdown was more of a crisis than hundreds of families who have lost loved ones at the hands of illegal immigrants in our country.

These federal employees will get back pay.  These poor families will not get their sons, daughters, wives and husbands back.

“The symbol of America should be the Statue of Liberty, not a thirty-foot wall,” Schumer concluded.

Yes, Senator Schumer, “The symbol of America should be the Statue of Liberty,” but I’m afraid the symbol right now is of an illegal immigrant jumping over a pathetic 6 foot fence and breaking into our country.

Responding to Pelosi’s widely reported comment that a wall would be “immoral,” President Trump concluded his address by saying, “Some have suggested a barrier is immoral.  Then why do wealthy politicians build walls, fences and gates around their homes? They don’t build walls because they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside.”

According to Marc A. Thiessen for The Washington Post, “Trump won the night.  Schumer and Pelosi lost.”

Thiessen added that, “Speaking from the Oval Office for the first time during his presidency, Trump embraced our country’s tradition as a nation of immigrants, declaring ‘America proudly welcomes millions of lawful immigrants who enrich our society and contribute to our nation.’ He then offered a cogent explanation why he believes we face what he called ‘a humanitarian crisis, a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul’ along our southern border.”

“He laid out his solution, which he explained were ‘developed by law enforcement professionals and border agents’ and includes funds for cutting-edge technology, more border agents, more immigration judges, more bed space and medical support, and $5.7 billion for a ‘physical barrier’ that he called ‘just common sense.’”

“The president did not unilaterally declare a national emergency. Instead, he called for compromise and said, ‘To those who refuse to compromise in the name of border security, I would ask: imagine if it was your child, your husband, or your wife, whose life was so cruelly shattered and totally broken?’”

“He was, in short, presidential.”

“Pelosi and Schumer failed to use the one word that millions of Americans were longing to hear, compromise.  But Trump did.  That is why the president won the night.  Schumer and Pelosi appealed to their base, while Trump made an effective appeal to persuadable Americans.”

“Until now, Trump has owned the 18-day government shutdown that prompted this address, because he’s the one who started it.  But if Democrats continue to attack him, and won’t entertain any compromise, soon the shutdown will be all theirs, because they’re the ones who have refused to end it.”

Radio and TV talk show host Mark Levin called Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer “pathological liars” and “scam artists” following their response to President Trump’s Oval Office address on the border wall.

“Let’s keep a few things in mind when you watch Schumer and Pelosi, they are pathological liars,” he continued. “They have been in Congress over half a century. What the hell have they done about the border? They are part of the scam artists. They get amnesty, legalization, citizenship, and never secure the border.”

Democrats are well known for not letting facts get in the way of a good political argument, and this argument is no exception.

But in the end, we ARE dealing with a real “crisis” here and it is way past due that we effectively and realistically deal with it.

 

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.

wall addresses

 

 

What is a “Republican,” and what is a “Conservative,” and is President Trump either one?  

I would suggest that the terms “republican” and “conservative” are moving targets.

When President Trump was running for president, it was pretty apparent that “the establishment republicans” didn’t consider him “a republican,” and the “establishment conservatives” didn’t consider him a “conservative.”

President Trump ran under the mantle of “a republican” within the Republican Party, but definitely was not a member of “the club.”

And people supported Donald Trump for the 2016 election for just that reason.  Many Americans wanted someone who wasn’t a member of the establishment politician’s “club.”  I believe people voted for Donald Trump because of his ideas and his intentions, without much regard for which party he ran under or how he was labeled.

Socially speaking, Donald Trump’s “anti-political correctness” stance naturally aligned him more with the Republican Party and the conservatives, however.

The terms “republican” and “conservative,” of course, mean different things to different people.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News contributor, also asked the question, “Is Trump a Republican?” and pointed out that President Trump, “chose to characterize himself as a conservative Republican; and nearly two years into his presidency, he continues to call himself that.”

Judge Napolitano goes on to say that, “A fair analysis of his presidency at its current mid-point gives rise in my mind, and I suggest it should in yours, to serious questions about his fidelity to any conservative principles. Trump is the president who attacks the FBI almost every day, borrows a trillion dollars a year to run the government, has tried to re-write immigration laws on his own, has imposed tariffs on household goods for which Americans must pay up to 25 percent more than they previously were paying, suggested he could shut down the New York Times and CNN, insults foreign leaders whose alliances with the US are long and deep, bombed Syria without congressional authorization, sent troops to Syria then summarily ordered them home, threatened to reveal intelligence sources publicly, and continues to use drones to kill folks internationally.”

Wow!  Where did that come from and how do you really feel, Judge?

First of all, when someone leads off by saying this is going to be “a fair analysis,” it usually isn’t, and this is no exception.

Let’s analyze the Judge’s attacks, one mindless point at a time.

The Judge says, “Trump is the president who attacks the FBI almost every day…”

Have you been paying attention to the news at all Judge?  Do the names James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page conjure up any reason to attack the FBI?  Does the fraudulent Steele dossier, the FISA warrants that were obtained under false pretenses, and the “spying on” of the Trump campaign and the early Trump presidency possibly give The President any reason to be critical of the FBI?

The Judge complains that President Trump, “…, borrows a trillion dollars a year to run the government…”

And this is any different from Barrack Obama or George Bush how?  No one else seems to be concerned about the deficit.  Why should he?  The “establishment conservatives” talk a good deficit concern game, but that’s as far as it goes…, talk.

Judge Napolitano claims that President Trump, “…, has tried to re-write immigration laws on his own…”

For a judge, you don’t seem to be very observant, Judge Napolitano.  Quite the contrary from your claim, President Trump is actually trying to follow the immigration laws on the books and work within his Constitutional rights as a president and commander in chief.  Perhaps you had him confused with former President Obama.

The Judge says that President Trump, “…, has imposed tariffs on household goods for which Americans must pay up to 25 percent more than they previously were paying…”

This is such a shallow-minded, short-sided and disingenuous remark to be coming from you, Judge.  You must be aware that The United States has been getting ripped-off by all of our trading partners for many years, and that from time to time we have to pay a little bit more as negotiations are taking place, before better trade deals are implemented (as with Canada and Mexico for example).  In the long run we will be much better off as a country.  Wait and see what the China talks bring.

Judge Napolitano asserts that President Trump, “…, suggested he could shut down the New York Times and CNN…”

This statement by the Judge is just a plain lie. President Trump has never said he could “shut down the New York Times and CNN.”  He has called these two news outlets “fake news,” which they are, but never claimed he could, or would, “shut them down.”

The Judge says President Trump, “…, insults foreign leaders whose alliances with the US are long and deep…”

President Trump does not “insult foreign leaders.”  He merely has let them know “there is a new sheriff in town,” and that we value being their ally, but not at the expense of the US at every turn.

“…, bombed Syria without congressional authorization…”

One, he doesn’t need congressional authorization to bomb anyone, and two he demonstrated he means what he says, unlike our prior, weak, president.

“…, sent troops to Syria then summarily ordered them home…”

What’s your point Judge?  Is this not within the prerogative of the Commander in Chief?  And are we just going to keep our soldiers planted out in the desert over there forever?

“…, threatened to reveal intelligence sources publicly…”

This is not really the case here, Judge.  Considering everything the FBI chose to redact in those “secret” documents, what he really threatened to do was reveal the FBI’s CYA operation, not any intelligence sources.

“… and continues to use drones to kill folks internationally.”

Really?  You want to go there?  I can’t recall hearing anything about any drones killing anyone since President Trump was elected, as opposed to Obama’s administration’s almost weekly bragging about the fact.

So there you have the complete deconstruction and refutation of Judge Andrew Napolitano’s “fair analysis” of President Trump’s action in office so far.

I must admit that Judge Napolitano has had me fooled for quite a while.  I apparently had mistaken him as a good natured, former judge, who lent his experience, knowledge and perspective to topics of the day, when in fact he turns out to be a “fake news,” “never Trumper!”

Shame on me, but thank you to the Judge for finally revealing himself.

So the real question here isn’t “Is Trump a Republican?”  It’s “Why isn’t Judge Napolitano working over at CNN?”

 

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.

judge napolitano

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑