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

 

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

Liberal billionaire apologizes for funding effort to link Russians to Republicans.  “Well, all righty then!”

Well, all righty then…, as long as he apologized, right?

Wait…, what?!

According to Lukas Mikelionis of Fox News, “Democratic operatives created fake Russian “bots” to link “the Russians” to [republican candidate] Roy Moore in the recent Alabama senate election.”

Amazing.

CAN YOU EVEN IMAGINE HOW THIS STORY WOULD BE TREATED IF IT HAD BEEN A RICH CONSERVATIVE DOING THIS?  The “biased, liberal, fake news media” would have lost their minds.  But, since it was a rich liberal democrat, they just look the other way.  Another example of propaganda by omission or disregard.

Okay, so first of all, what exactly is a “bot?”

A “bot” is a particular type of software that is employed in social media networks (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) to automatically generate messages or in general advocate for certain ideas, support campaigns, and public relations either by acting as a “follower” or even as a fake account that gathers followers itself.  Currently, it is estimated that up to 15% of active Twitter accounts may be social bots.  “Social bots can generate convincing internet personas that are very capable of influencing real people.

Using social bots is against the terms of service of many platforms, especially Twitter and Instagram.  However many users, especially businesses, still automate their Instagram activity in order to gain real followers rather than buying fake ones. This is commonly done through third-party social automation companies.

Liberal Silicon Valley billionaire Reid Hoffman issued an apology for funding a group that falsely tried to give an impression the Russian government was supporting Alabama Republican Roy Moore in last year’s Senate election against the now elected Senator, democrat, Doug Jones.

Hoffman is the co-founder of “LinkedIn” (LinkedIn is a business and employment-oriented service that operates via websites and mobile apps. It is mainly used for professional networking, including employers posting jobs and job seekers posting information about themselves.

Reid Hoffman is also one of Silicon Valley’s top donors to Democrat campaigns and PACs.  In the last election cycle he donated $7 million to Democrat groups, though his money also pours into non-traditional groups that aren’t mandated to report their funding and often operate in the shadows.

One such group is American Engagement Technologies (AET). According to Mikelionis, AET is a firm run by former Obama appointee Mikey Dickerson, which received $750,000 from Hoffman and was part of the effort to falsely portray the Republican’s senate bid as being supported by the Kremlin.

Oh…, an “Obama appointee.”  Did you ever notice that when stuff like this pops up, these names associated with the miss deeds display the obvious incestuous liberal nature of “the swamp?”

“I find the tactics that have been recently reported highly disturbing. For that reason, I am embarrassed by my failure to track AET, the organization I did support, more diligently as it made its own decisions to perhaps fund projects that I would reject,” Hoffman said in a statement provided to the Washington Post.

Ya, AET, I am totally disturbed that you would allow yourself to get busted and implicate me on top of it!  That’s what he really means.

“I want to be unequivocal: there is absolutely no place in our democracy for manipulating facts or using falsehoods to gain political advantage,” he added.

Oh, you’re so noble Mr. Hoffman!  So tell me, what are you then, stupid, ignorant, incompetent, or a cheat and a liar?

Ding, ding, ding…, I think have a winner there with “a cheat and a liar!”

“Hoffman said AET went on to facilitate a secret project with a budget of $100,000.  One participant in the project was Jonathon Morgan, the chief executive of New Knowledge, a firm that wrote a report, released by the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this month, about Russia’s social media operations in the 2016 election and its efforts to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump.”

So, Mr. Jonathon Morgan, do you know Christopher Steele by chance?  I have a feeling that Mr. Morgan’s report is about as reputable as Mr. Steele’s fraudulent dossier.

Democratic operatives then created thousands of fake Russian accounts on Twitter and began following Moore, prompting attention from local and national media that falsely suggested Russia is backing Moore’s candidacy.

The project also involved creating a Facebook page and imitated conservative Alabamians who weren’t satisfied with the Republican candidate while encouraging others to write in another candidate.

In a statement on Twitter, Morgan denied the project was aimed at influencing the election, which the Democrat won by 22,000 votes. “I did not participate in any campaign to influence the public,” he wrote, saying the project goals weren’t about supporting the Jones campaign.

Deny, deny, deny.  Deflect, deflect, deflect.  You can’t deny that this is a strategy that works, especially when you have a cooperative “biased, liberal, fake news media” that will look the other way.

The disinformation campaign was first revealed by the New York Times that obtained an internal report detailing the efforts.

“We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet,” the internal report said.

The multi-million Senate Alabama race ended with Jones victory over the embattled Republican.  Doug Jones became the first Democratic senator from Alabama in more than 20 years.

Jones has since told Fox News that he’s “outraged” over the reports detailing the efforts to portray his opponent as backed by the Kremlin, calling for a federal investigation over the project (although not willing to discount the obviously influenced election results).

“I’d like to see the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department look at this to see if there were any laws being violated and, if there were, prosecute those responsible,” Jones said. “These authorities need to use this example right now to start setting the course for the future to let people know that this is not acceptable in the United States of America.”

Yes, we know Senator Jones, it’s not acceptable, although you’re not willing to discount the obviously influenced election results regarding your own election victory.

The daily hypocrisy, the daily examples of double standards, the almost daily revealing of questionable/illegal activity by liberals and democrats, is really hard to take some days.  But like I have said before, “the swamp” has our (the conservatives) full and undivided attention now, and you can’t just sweep this crap under the rug anymore like you had become accustomed to.

WINNING!

 

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.

putin donating

 

 

 

I’d love to be able to “regulate the content of speech.”  If it wasn’t for that darn Constitution!

The U.S. Representative for California’s 33rd congressional district (in the Los Angeles area), democrat, Ted Lieu, said he would “love to regulate the content of speech,” including that on Fox News, but he can’t do it because of the U.S. Constitution.

That darn old Constitution!

Lieu made the comments during an interview about the testimony of Google CEO Sundar Pichai at a House Judiciary Committee hearing during an interview with CNN host Brianna Keilar.

“… I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech.  The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that’s simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run it’s better the government does not regulate the content of speech,” Congressman Lieu continued.

I’m glad you feel that way congressman; since that is what allows you and your liberal friends to say the stupid things you do, not to mention you took an oath to uphold and protect The Constitution as an elected representative of the people.

Lieu added that, “Private companies should self-regulate their platforms and the government shouldn’t interfere.”

Stop the presses!  This would be the first thing that a democrat felt the government shouldn’t interfere with!  Although this statement does not seem consistent with his prior statements.

I think what he means is private companies, run by liberals, should be able to self-regulate their own platforms, as long as they are attacking conservatives.

Yes…, I’m sure that’s it.

After his remarks aired, Lieu came under fire on social media, prompting him to go on a Twitter spree to clarify his views, including that he would like to regulate Fox News.

One Twitter user had accused him of being “a poster child for tyranny.”

Lieu, of course, then had to tell us what we should have understood him to say, as he insisted that he was actually defending the First Amendment rather than showing his desire to regulate speech.

Oh I get it!  So it was like “opposite day” or something!

Maybe we should have interpreters standing alongside these liberals, translating what they really mean, like we have people translating their words into sign language for those who are hearing impaired!

“My whole point is that government officials always want to regulate speech,” Lieu added.

I really haven’t heard about any government officials wanting to regulate speech other than you, Mr. Lieu, and of course former President Obama regarding Fox News!

According to Lukas Mikelionis of Fox News, “Lieu has become somewhat of a foe of President Trump following his election, often taking to social media to throw jabs at the president.”

“He’s among the Democrats who’s been flirting with the idea of impeaching Trump over the perceived collusion between Russia and the campaign.  He also tried to kick-start earlier this year the impeachment process of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.”

Ok.  Well, that paints a clearer picture of Congressman Lieu now.

So what we have here is your typically confused and inept, liberal politician.

A year and a half ago, Lieu tweeted at President Trump, saying: “President” @realDonaldTrump: You truly are an evil man. Your job is to help Americans. Not intentionally try to destroy their lives. https://t.co/2M94E1g39b — Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) March 25, 2017

This was in response to President Trump’s tweet about Obamacare which said:

ObamaCare will explode and we will all get together and piece together a great healthcare plan for THE PEOPLE. Do not worry!  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 25, 2017

There we go again.  When liberals can’t win an argument intellectually, they resort to name calling and labeling.  Who the “evil one” is and who was trying to “destroy lives,” is definitely a matter of opinion.

Congressman Lieu then tweeted:

Mr. “President”: Art II of Constitution requires you to faithfully execute laws passed by Congress. Subverting #Obamacare violates your Oath https://t.co/2M94E1g39b — Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) March 25, 2017

Excuse me Congressman Lieu, but wasn’t it President Obama who chose to ignore our immigration laws, and change the Obamacare law as he saw fit on the run?

I don’t recall you pointing out Article II of The Constitution to President Obama, or did I just miss that?

“Even earlier this year, Lieu started printing asterisks next to Trump’s name in his official press releases, leading to a footnote that reminds readers of his failure to capture the popular vote and of allegations of Russian influence,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

Fox News Insider pointed out that, “Lieu also started a “Cloud of Illegitimacy Clock,” which counts the days, hours and minutes that Trump has allegedly been in conflict with a section of the Constitution that governs the likelihood of interference by foreign business interests.”

“Trump is not making America first, he’s making America second,” Lieu said.

It’s not that hard Mr. Lieu.  Really.

Repeat after me, President is “making America great again” by “putting America first.”

I would really like to see a study about the IQ scores for people in your district, Mr. Lieu.  Something tells me the average score would be somewhere south of barely functional.

Is your district anywhere near Maxine Waters’ district?  I’m gonna go way out on a limb here and guess the answer is “yes.”

 

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.

freedom of speech

 

So the “biased, liberal, fake news media” now feels it is OK to belittle the education level of selected groups of voters? 

The answer to this question is undeniably “yes,” at least as far as Eugene Scott of The Washington Post is concerned.

Mr. Scott chooses to point out that, “Americans are pursuing higher education at growing rates, but those without a college education are increasingly finding a home in the GOP.”

So are you implying that voters without college educations are somehow less informed, Mr. Scott?

Are you implying that voters without college educations are somehow less deserving of the right to vote, Mr. Scott?

During the latest midterm elections in 2018, if I heard it once I heard it a thousand times from the democrats, “Every vote counts!”  “Every vote deserves to be counted!”

I guess that’s only true when you’re “harvesting” what you believe are votes for democrats.  Right Mr. Scott?

Voter demographics should not have a bearing on anything.  Each voter is as important as any other voter.  The important things are that each legal voter have the opportunity to vote, and that they vote only once.

According to new data released by the Pew Research Center, higher educational attainment is increasingly associated with Democratic Party affiliation and leaning:

“In 1994, 39% of those with a four-year college degree identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party and 54% associated with the Republican Party.  In 2017, those figures were exactly reversed.”

More than half of registered voters who identify as Democrat have a bachelor’s degree, while fewer than 4 in 10 registered voters who identify as Republican have a bachelor’s degree.

Those with graduate degrees are even more likely to find their political home in the Democratic Party, according to the survey.

Meanwhile, the GOP has increasingly become more of a political destination to Americans who lack a college degree, according to Pew, “Among those with no more than a high school education, 47% affiliate with the GOP or lean Republican, while 45% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic.”

In Mr. Scott’s estimation, “This may not bode well for the GOP long-term as the American public becomes increasingly educated.”

I think he means, “… as the American public becomes increasingly brain washed by our liberal education systems!”

According to Census Bureau data, “More than a third of American adults have a four-year college degree or higher, the highest level ever measured by the Census Bureau.”

Why Mr. Scott…, I do believe you are “fake news!”

You say, “This may not bode well for the GOP long-term as the American public becomes increasingly educated,” but if “more than a third of American adults have a four-year college degree or higher,” that would mean close to two thirds do not.  How does that “not bode well for the GOP?”

Mr. Scott goes on to say, “As the Republican Party increasingly becomes the party of those without degrees, their leaders may feel pressure to champion policies that benefit working class voters…”

Well, we can’t have that!  Right Mr. Scott?

That damn “working class,” right Mr. Scott?

Those pathetically ignorant “working class” voters who don’t deserve to vote, but pay for all of your liberal “give-away” programs, right Mr. Scott?

Pew data shows that the educational makeup of the two major parties’ electorates also has changed substantially over the past two decades, particularly when factoring in race:

“When race and education are taken into account, white voters who do to not have a college degree make up a diminished share of Democratic registered voters.  White voters who do not have a four-year degree now constitute just a third of Democratic voters, down from 56% two decades ago.  By contrast, non-college white voters continue to make up a majority of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters at 59%.”

Ha!  I knew it wouldn’t take long before race got involved in the issue!

Apparently “non-educated” white voters are less desirable that “non-educated” Black or Latino voters.

Mr. Scott finishes by saying, “Some top GOP officials have attracted attention for their desire to win women and people of color to their party.  Perhaps moving forward we’ll see more emphasis on what can be done to win the highly educated.”

It seems to me, Mr. Scott, that your “highly educated” people are more often than not the people that are more “highly confused.”

Also, why is it that liberals seem to only value education as a result of a college education?

How about educations and training acquired by our “trade” professionals, like electricians, plumbers, welders, carpenters, HVAC technicians, mechanics, licensed practical nurses, construction professionals, et al?  Do these educations, most of which are quite extensive, not count just because they are practical?

How about the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who serve in our military, most of whom do not have college educations?  Do these educations not count because they are practical in nature?

No, these educations don’t “count” in the minds of liberals because these are educations that do not indoctrinate the students into the liberal political ideology.

Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu, also of The Washington Post, have their own take on voter demographics, specifically as they pertain to Donald Trump’s election and support.

Carnes and Lupu say that, “Media coverage of the 2016 election often emphasized Donald Trump’s appeal to ‘the working class.’ The Atlantic said that ‘the billionaire developer is building a blue-collar foundation.’ The Associated Press wondered what ‘Trump’s success in attracting white, working-class voters’ would mean for his general election strategy.  On Nov. 9, the New York Times front-page article about Trump’s victory characterized it as ‘a decisive demonstration of power by a largely overlooked coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters.’”

“But what about education?” They continued.  “Many pundits noticed early on that Trump’s supporters were mostly people without college degrees.  There were two problems with this line of reasoning, however.”

“First, not having a college degree isn’t a guarantee that someone belongs in the working class, nor should it somehow indicate that these people are not successful (think Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, Aretha Franklin, Quentin Tarantino, Ellen DeGeneres, Simon Cowell, Ted Turner, Rachel Ray, Kim Kardasian, Mark Wahlberg, Al Pacino, Seth Rogan, Marshall “Eminem” Mathers, and Robert ‘F-you’ DeNiro, just to name a few).”

“And, second, although more than 70 percent of Trump supporters didn’t have college degrees, when we looked at the NBC polling data, we noticed something the pundits left out: during the primaries, about 70 percent of all Republicans didn’t have college degrees, close to the national average (71 percent according to the 2013 Census).  Far from being a magnet for the less educated, Trump seemed to have about as many people without college degrees in his camp as we would expect any successful Republican candidate to have.”

So Mr. Scott, you have been debunked!

“Observers have often used the education gap to conjure images of poor people flocking to Trump, but the truth is, many of the people without college degrees who voted for Trump were from middle- and high-income households.”

Many, if not most, of these “observers” are quite confused and quite biased as well.  “Poor people” flocking to candidates is, again, only desirable when they are “flocking” to the appropriate liberal candidate.

“In short, the narrative that attributes Trump’s victory to a “coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters” just doesn’t square with the 2016 election data.  According to the election study, white non-Hispanic voters without college degrees making below the median household income made up only 25 percent of Trump voters.”

In a word, there are “uneducated voters” and then there are “uneducated voters.”

It would appear that it is the democrats who are a party of extremes.  They seem to be comprised mostly of college eggheads, highly paid entertainers, extreme social and environmental interest groups, high school drop-outs, high school graduates who haven’t furthered their education, and all of those who live off of the government and have no intent to better themselves.

In a recent National Review article (The National Review is recognized as a leading conservative magazine, but was exposed during the election as just another “swampy,” establishment, media outlet) about Trump’s alleged support among the working class bordered on a call to arms against the less fortunate, saying that, “The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles.  Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin,” and that “the truth about these dysfunctional downscale communities is that they deserve to die.”

According to Carnes and Lupu, “This kind of stereotyping and scapegoating is a dismaying consequence of the narrative that working-class Americans swept Trump into the White House.  What deserves to die isn’t America’s working-class communities.  It’s the myth that they’re the reason Trump was elected.”

Shame on you National Review, and shame on you Eugene Scott.

And thank you to Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu for reporting the facts and not twisting the facts to fit the liberal narrative.

 

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.

remember-when-you-said-trump-would-never-be-president-but-36286487

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑