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

In a special “runoff” election Tuesday night, the last Senate seat up for grabs in 2018 was claimed by the Republican, Cindy Hyde-Smith, by a 54% – 46% margin over the Democrat, Mike Espy.

I guess the “blue wave” didn’t make it too far ashore in the state of Mississippi!

But I digress.

Not only did Hyde-Smith win, giving the Republicans a 53-47 margin in the Senate, she was the first woman elected as a senator from the state of Mississippi. So it was historical in that aspect as well.

Other than possibly the news regarding the migrant caravan on our southern border, this election story should probably have been the most newsworthy item out there this morning.

So, how did the “biased, liberal, fake news media” choose to cover this election story?

Well, let’s take a look the day after the election.

On “The Washington Post’s” website, you have to scroll down to the 28^th story listed there. The headline reads: “Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith wins racially charged election over Democrat Mike Espy.”

On “Yahoo News,” we have to scroll down to the 100^th story listed there, where the headline reads: “Mississippi voters send Hyde-Smith back to the US Senate after runoff marred by controversy.”

On the MSNBC website, there is no mention of election results at all until we see a reference to a story that appears on their show, “Morning Joe,” regarding the election. And we only see this after scrolling over halfway down the website, past 39 other stories.

Lastly, we have our good friends over at CNN. Of the 100 articles listed on their website, we find no headline about the actual election results. The only story we find is titled: “What we learned from the 2018 Senate race.”

We can see that even when the story is mentioned, albeit as an afterthought, it only appears with some sort of negative connotation along with it.

You see, when reality doesn’t support the narrative, reality is just basically ignored by the “biased, liberal, fake news media.

I call this “propaganda by omission,” and it is conducted by the “biased, liberal, fake news media” almost every day.

Alternatively, suppose the democrat had won the election in Mississippi.

Do you think the “biased, liberal, fake news media” would have covered the story any differently?

Do you think the story would have appeared more prominently in their “story pecking order?”

Do you think we may have seen more positive headlines, bordering on being almost joyous in nature?

The answers to these questions are YES, YES and YES.

So once again, we have a blatant display of how the “biased, liberal, fake news media” operates.

They can deny their bias, preferential treatment, misinformation and propagandizing all they want, but we are wise to their tricks now and they have our full and undivided attention. Their days of getting away with this are over!

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 29, 2018 1

You can have “softballs” or real questions President Obama…, and we’re all out of “softballs!”

President Barack Obama sat down with Bill O’Reilly, February 2, 2014, prior to the Super Bowl, to discuss an array of topics.

As we read over the selected portions of the transcripts for this two-part interview, the difference between how President Trump answers questions and how President Obama answers questions becomes very apparent, very quickly.

Donald Trump is not a politician at heart, and Barack Obama is. This is something we should all be able to acknowledge.

Donald Trump actually answers questions that are posed to him. Barack Obama dances around questions, manipulates the English language, and tries to dodge tough questions altogether. In some cases he even chooses to be deceitful.

President Obama seems upset that someone is actually asking him these questions, as the “biased, liberal, fake news media” regularly gives him a pass on all of this “uncomfortable stuff.”

Since none of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” (CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, et al) chose to “hyper analyze” President Obama’s interview at the time, no one really did, I have decided to perform this community service in retrospect.

NOTE: My comments will be inserted as “MER,” for MrEricksonRules.

Let’s take a look at this first part of the interview, regarding the rollout of the Obamacare Healthcare.gov website, Benghazi and the IRS scandal.

O’REILLY: I want to get some things on the record. So let’s begin with health care.

OBAMA: Yes?

O’REILLY: October 1st it rolls out.

OBAMA: Right.

O’REILLY: Immediately, there are problems with the computers.

OBAMA: Right.

MER: We have now experienced three honest and straight forward answers in a row. It’s all downhill from here.

O’REILLY: When did you know there were going to be problems with those computers?

OBAMA: Well, I think we all anticipated there would be glitches, because any time you’ve got technology, a new program rolling out, there are going to be some glitches. I don’t think I anticipated or anybody anticipated the degree of the problems with the Web site. And…

MER: Having been a software developer at one point, there doesn’t have to be an expectations of “glitches,” if the system is properly tested. In order to properly test a system, it helps to have “users’ who ae competent and intelligent, as well as software developers who are competent and professional. In this case, it would appear that we had neither.

O’REILLY: So you just didn’t know when it rolled out that this was going to be…

OBAMA: Well, I don’t think…

O’REILLY: — a problem?

OBAMA: — as I said, I don’t think anybody anticipated the degree of problems that you had on HealthCare.gov. The good news is that right away, we decided how are we going to fix it, it got fixed within a month and a half, it was up and running and now it’s working the way it’s supposed to and we’ve signed up three million people.

MER: That is good news that you were able to decide how to fix it. I’m shaking my head right now. Oh…, and it only took a month and a half to fix it?! Like I said, I was a software developer at one point, and this Healtcare.gov program does not seem to be a particularly complex program. So who were these clowns that were responsible for developing this software, and why were they selected? The company’s name is CGI Federal, and it’s owned by a Canadian firm, CGI Group. CGI had done work in the healthcare arena before, and not all of it good. Its performance on Ontario, Canada’s health-care medical registry for diabetes sufferers was so poor that officials ditched the $46.2 million contract after three years of missed deadlines. Two good questions would be, why was an American company not selected, and why was this company selected, given its poor track record? My guess is it would have something to do with campaign contributions, but I’m just cynical that way.

O’REILLY: I don’t know about that [that it’s working the way it’s supposed to], because last week, there was an Associated Press call of people who actually went to the Web site and only 8 percent of them feel that it’s working well.

Why didn’t you fire Sebelius [Kathleen Sebelius was serving as the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services], the secretary in charge of this…

OBAMA: (INAUDIBLE).

MER: Excuse me…, what was that?

O’REILLY: — because I mean she had to know, after all those years and all that money, that it wasn’t going to work?

MER: She was obviously clueless like all the rest of them in this administration. There was absolutely NO excuse for this debacle.

OBAMA: You know, my main priority right now is making sure that it delivers for the American people. And what we…

O’REILLY: You’re not going to answer that?

OBAMA: — what, what we’ve ended up doing is we’ve got three million people signed up so far. We’re about a month behind of where we anticipated we wanted to be. We’ve got over six million people who have signed up for Medicaid.

(MRE: No, he’s not going to answer that.)

O’REILLY: Yes.

OBAMA: We’ve got three million young people under the age of 26 who have signed up on their parents’ plan. And so what we’re constantly figuring out is how do we continue to improve it, how do we make sure that the folks who don’t have health insurance can get health insurance…

O’REILLY: OK…

OBAMA: — and those who are underinsured are able to get better health insurance.

O’REILLY: I’m sure, I’m sure that the intent is noble, but I’m a taxpayer.

MER: I would have to differ with you at this point O’Reilly. I’m sure the intent is anything but noble.

OBAMA: Yes.

O’REILLY: And I’m paying Kathleen Sebelius’ salary and she screwed up.

OBAMA: Yes.

O’REILLY: And you’re not holding her accountable.

OBAMA: Yes, well, I…, I promise you that we hold everybody up and down the line accountable. But when we’re…

MER: That’s a lie.

O’REILLY: But she’s still there.

OBAMA: — when we’re in midstream, Bill, we want to make sure that our main focus is how do we make this thing work so that people are able to sign up? And that’s what we’ve done.

O’REILLY: All right.

Was it the biggest mistake of your presidency to tell the nation over and over, if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance?

OBAMA: Oh, Bill, you’ve got a long list of my mistakes of my presidency…

MER: I wouldn’t call it a “long list of mistakes,” seeing this is only the second “mistake” that he’s addressing.)

O’REILLY: But, no, really, for you…

OBAMA: — as I’ve (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY: — wasn’t that the biggest one?

OBAMA: But this is, this is one that I regret and I’ve said I regretted, in part because we put in a grandfather clause in the original law saying that, in fact, you were supposed to be able to keep it. It obviously didn’t cover everybody that we needed to and that’s why we changed it, so that we further grandfathered in folks and many people who thought originally, when they got that cancellation notice, they couldn’t keep it or not (INAUDIBLE)…

MER: Ah hah! The old, dreaded, double grandfathered law scenario! Nice try President Obama. We all knew that was a lie, and so did you. You repeated this lie to the American people well over twenty times! “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period!” There didn’t seem to be any concern about some “clause in the original law” then. Please note that the “biased, liberal, fake news media” completely looked the other way on this one. Not one “biased, liberal, fake news media” outlet so much as made mention of President Obama’s faulty claims or questioned them at the time. Can you imagine if President Trump had made a similar type of claim? Exactly.

O’REILLY: It’s in the past. But isn’t that the…

OBAMA: So…

O’REILLY: — biggest mistake?

OBAMA: Well, I, you know, Bill, as I said…

O’REILLY: You gave your enemies…

OBAMA: You…

O’REILLY: — a lot of fodder for it.

OBAMA: — you were very generous in saying I look pretty good considering I’ve been in the presidency for five years. And I think part of the reason is, I try to focus not on the fumbles, but on the next plan.

MER: That’s probably wise. It would be hard to even attempt to focus on the vast array of fumbles swirling around you!

O’REILLY: All right.

Libya, House Armed Services testimony, General Carter Ham, you know, the general?

OBAMA: Yes. Right.

O’REILLY: Security in Africa.

OBAMA: Yes.

O’REILLY: He testified that on the day that the ambassador was murdered and the three other Americans, all right, he told Secretary Panetta it was a terrorist attack. Shortly after Ham, General Ham, said that, Secretary Panetta came in to you.

OBAMA: Yes.

O’REILLY: Did he tell you, Secretary Panetta, it was a terrorist attack?

OBAMA: You know what he told me was that there was an attack on our compound…

O’REILLY: He didn’t tell you…

OBAMA: — (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY: — he didn’t use the word “terror?”

OBAMA: You know, in — in the heat of the moment, Bill, what folks are focused on is what’s happening on the ground, do we have eyes on it, how can we make sure our folks are secure…

O’REILLY: Because I just want to get this on the record…

OBAMA: So, I…

O’REILLY: — did he tell you it was a terror attack?

OBAMA: Bill — and what I’m — I’m answering your question. What he said to me was, we’ve got an attack on our compound. We don’t know yet…

O’REILLY: No terror attack?

OBAMA: — we don’t know yet who’s doing it. Understand, by definition, Bill, when somebody is attacking our compound…

O’REILLY: Yes?

OBAMA: — that’s an act of terror, which is how I characterized it the day after it happened. So the — so the question ends up being who, in fact, was attacking us?

O’REILLY: But it’s more than that…

OBAMA: And that…

O’REILLY: — though…

OBAMA: — well, we…

O’REILLY: — because of Susan Rice.

OBAMA: No, it…

O’REILLY: It’s more than that because if Susan Rice goes out and tells the world that it was a spontaneous demonstration…

MER: Ah yes…, “clueless” Susan Rice. President Obama’s talking puppet of choice. Her performances on the Sunday talk shows was especially “swampy” in this case.

OBAMA: Bill…

O’REILLY: — off a videotape but your…

OBAMA: Bill…

O’REILLY: — your commanders and the secretary of Defense know it’s a terror attack…

OBAMA: Now, Bill…

O’REILLY: Just…

OBAMA: — Bill…

O’REILLY: — as an American…

OBAMA: — Bill — Bill…

MER: That’s seven “Bills,” just to be clear.

O’REILLY: — I’m just confused.

OBAMA: And I’m — and I’m trying to explain it to, if you want to listen. The fact of the matter is, is that people understood, at the time, something very dangerous was happening, that we were focused on making sure that we did everything we can — could — to protect them. In the aftermath, what became clear was that the security was lax, that not all the precautions and — that needed to be taken were taken and both myself and Secretary Clinton and others indicated as much.

But at the moment, when these things happen, Bill, on the other side of the world, people…

O’REILLY: It’s the fog of war…

OBAMA: — people — that’s — people don’t know at the very moment exactly why something like this happens. And when you look at the videotape of this whole thing unfolding, this is not some systematic, well organized process. You see…

MER: It was the anniversary of 9/11. That’s why something like this happens. On the anniversary of 9/11 all of our foreign entities, especially those in Muslim countries, should be on a heightened state of alert, and response forces around the world should be on a heightened state of readiness as well. This was just another demonstration of the Obama administration’s ineptitude

O’REILLY: Well, it was heavy weapons used…

OBAMA: — you…

O’REILLY: — and that…

OBAMA: — what you…

O’REILLY: — that’s the thing…

OBAMA: — what you see — Bill…

O’REILLY: — heavy weapons coming in.

OBAMA: — Bill, listen, I — I — I’ve gone through this and we have had multiple hearings on it. What happens is you have an attack like this taking place and you have a mix of folks who are just troublemakers. You have folks who have an ideological agenda.

MER: Just for the record Mr. President, they’re called “radical Islamic terrorists.” They’re not only “a mix of folks who are just troublemakers.” These aren’t some frat boys trashing a dorm.

O’REILLY: All right.

OBAMA: You have some who are affiliated with terrorist organizations. You have some that are not. But the main thing that all of us have to take away from this is our diplomats are serving in some very dangerous places.

MER: Reeeeeally?!

O’REILLY: But there’s more…

OBAMA: And we’ve got…

O’REILLY: — there’s more than that…

OBAMA: — and we’ve got — and we’ve got to make sure that not only have we implemented all the reforms that were recommended…

MER: I believe the reforms that were recommended were, one: pull your head out of your arse, and two, try using common sense once in a while. They didn’t even bother to recommend putting the country or the American people ahead of your political ambitions because it just didn’t occur to them that “that” was an option!

O’REILLY: OK.

OBAMA: — by the independent agency…

O’REILLY: I…

OBAMA: — but we also have to make sure that we understand our folks out there are in a hazardous, dangerous situation…

O’REILLY: I think everybody understands that…

MER: Yes, we do understand that.

OBAMA: — and we…

O’REILLY: — Mr. President.

OBAMA: No, but — but, actually, not everybody does, because what ends up happening…

MER: Apparently everybody does…, except you and your administration, Mr. President!

O’REILLY: I think they do.

OBAMA: — what ends up happening is we end up creating a political agenda…

MER: Just to be clear…, that is ALL you and your friends do is create and manage your political agenda.

O’REILLY: Absolutely…

OBAMA: — over something…

O’REILLY: — and that’s…

OBAMA: — (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY: — that was my next question.

OBAMA: — which Democrats and Republicans should be unified in trying to figure out how are we going to protect people (INAUDIBLE)?

O’REILLY: I’ve got to get to the IRS…

OBAMA: OK.

O’REILLY: — but I just want to say that they’re — your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn’t want that out.

MER: Bingo!

OBAMA: Bill, think about…

O’REILLY: That’s what they believe.

OBAMA: — and they believe it because folks like you are telling them that.

MER: Are you calling Bill O’Reilly and Fox News “fake news” Mr. President?

O’REILLY: No, I’m not telling them that.

(LAUGHTER)

MER: I do believe he is calling you “fake news,” O’Reilly!

O’REILLY: I’m asking you whether you were told…

OBAMA: But — and what I’m saying is…

O’REILLY: — it was a terror attack and you…

OBAMA: — and what I’m saying is that is inaccurate.

O’REILLY: All right.

OBAMA: We, we revealed to the American people exactly what we understood at the time. The notion that we would hide the ball for political purposes when, a week later, we all said, in fact, there was a terrorist attack taking place the day after, I said it was an act of terror, that wouldn’t be a very good cover-up…

MER: The Benghazi attack took place on Sept. 11, 2012 (on the anniversary of 9/11) and into Sept 12, 2012. This was a good month and a half prior to the 2012 presidential election. You and your administration, Mr. President, did in fact perpetrate a cover-up and the deception of the American people.

According to an article by Kelly Riddell, for The Washington Times, June, 28, 2016, “A post Benghazi report points out Obama, Clinton lies.”

The scandal of Benghazi, and yes it was a scandal, reflects the effort by the Obama administration to deflect attention from failed American foreign policy and the rise of terrorism, through a conscious spin effort that hid the truth from the American public.

According to the House Benghazi report, “The Obama administration knew attacks on the consulate were because of terrorism, but they knowingly changed the narrative to blame an ‘inflammatory’ viral video, to escape any culpability of the attacks so close to a November election. In the 2012 campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly spoke of not only killing Osama bin Laden, but how Al Qaeda had been ‘decimated’ under his watch. Any word Benghazi was actually a terrorist attack would undermine this narrative.”

In her first public comment on the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, Mrs. Clinton blamed the attack on a viral video.

“I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today,” said Mrs. Clinton, then secretary of state. “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

The next day, Mrs. Clinton told the American public the administration was “working to determine the precise motivations” of those who carried out the assaults, but that “some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.”

Privately, she told the Egyptian Prime minister: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest. … Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”

Another day goes by, and publicly Mrs. Clinton continues to blame the internet video in her remarks in Morocco.

On Sept. 14, White House spokesman Jay Carney, answering a question about Benghazi during a press conference, said: “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy.”

This was a blatant lie. But it was spin directed from the top, Mr. Obama’s and Mrs. Clinton’s political future was at stake, after all.

An email sent to officials from White House foreign policy adviser Benjamin Rhodes, with the subject line, “goals,” shows the Benghazi narrative was: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

But IT WAS a broader failure of U.S. policy!

CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell said in a written statement to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence a few days later, “The critically important point is that the analysts considered this a terror attack from the very beginning.”

Mrs. Clinton blamed her changing public statements on differing intelligence reports she received in real-time. But there’s no evidence to suggest Mrs. Clinton had anything but clarity, right from the evening of the attack, that it was indeed terrorism.

Her public and private statements remained consistently at odds with each other. Privately, there was no doubt the attack was terrorism; publicly, it was blamed on a video and protesting, despite there being no eyewitness accounts of a protest.

She knew. The administration knew. But it wasn’t politically expedient to admit. So a lie was created, the narrative set, and everyone stuck to it.

MER: At this point, what difference does it make!? Oh…, I’m sorry Hillary…, that was your line!

O’REILLY: I’ve got to get to the IRS…

OBAMA: Yes.

O’REILLY: — because I don’t know what happened there and I’m hoping maybe you can tell us. Douglas Shulman, former IRS chief, he was cleared into the White House 157 times, more than any of your cabinet members, more than any other IRS guy in the history, by far.

OK, why was Douglas Shulman here 157 times?

Why?

OBAMA: Mr. Shulman, as the head of the IRS, is constantly coming in, because at the time, we were trying to set up the, uh, HealthCare.gov and the IRS…

O’REILLY: What did he have to do with that?

OBAMA: — and the IRS is involved in making sure that that works as part of the overall health care team.

O’REILLY: So it was all health care?

OBAMA: Number two, we’ve also got the IRS involved when it comes to some of the financial reforms to make sure that we don’t have taxpayer funded bailouts in the future. So you had all these different agendas in which the head of the IRS is naturally involved.

MER: I wouldn’t say the head of the IRS should “naturally be involved” with anything other than collecting taxes, and certainly not with “taxpayer funded bailouts!”

O’REILLY: Did you speak to him a lot…

OBAMA: — (INAUDIBLE).

O’REILLY: — yourself?

OBAMA: I do not recall meeting with him in any of these meetings that are pretty routine meetings that we had.

MER: Out of 157, that’s 157, visits to The White House, President Obama doesn’t “recall meeting with him in any of these meetings.” Now that’s what I call a good example of “plausible deniability!”

O’REILLY: OK, so you don’t — you don’t recall seeing Shulman, because what some people are saying is that the IRS was used…

OBAMA: Yes.

O’REILLY: — at a — at a local level in Cincinnati, and maybe other places to go after…

OBAMA: Absolutely wrong.

O’REILLY: — to go after.

OBAMA: Absolutely wrong.

O’REILLY: But how do you know that, because we — we still don’t know what happened there?

OBAMA: Bill, we do — that’s not what happened. They — folks have, again, had multiple hearings on this. I mean these kinds of things keep on surfacing, in part because you and your TV station will promote them.

MER: Yes, we remember these great hearings, highlighted by Lois Lerner and her refusal to testify, but somehow make a statement anyway.

O’REILLY: But don’t…

OBAMA: But when (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY: — think there are unanswered questions?

OBAMA: Bill, when you actually look at this stuff, there have been multiple hearings on it. What happened here was it that you’ve got a…

O’REILLY: But there’s no definition on it.

OBAMA: — you’ve got a 501(c)(4) law that people think is focusing. No — that the folks did not know how to implement…

O’REILLY: OK…

OBAMA: — because it basically says…

O’REILLY: — so you’re saying there was no…

OBAMA: — if you are involved…

O’REILLY: — no corruption there at all, none?

OBAMA: That’s not what I’m saying.

O’REILLY: (INAUDIBLE).

OBAMA: That’s actually…

O’REILLY: No, no, but I want to know what…

OBAMA: — (INAUDIBLE)…

O’REILLY: — you’re saying. You’re the leader of the country.

OBAMA: Absolutely.

O’REILLY: You’re saying no corruption?

OBAMA: No.

O’REILLY: None?

OBAMA: There were some — there were some bone-headed decisions…

MER: Now that we can believe!

O’REILLY: Bone-headed decisions…

OBAMA: — out of — out of a local office…

O’REILLY: But no mass corruption?

OBAMA: Not even mass corruption, not even a smidgeon of corruption, I would say.

MER: “Not even a smidgeon?” The “biased, liberal, fake news media” even felt obligated to chime in regarding this obvious abuse of power:

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow said: “There is a reasonable fear by all of us, by any of us, that the kind of power the IRS has could be misused,” she further said that this scrutiny of Tea Party groups was “not fair.”

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart stated that the controversy “threw doubt on President Obama’s ‘managerial competence’ and had proven correct ‘conspiracy theorists.’”

ABC News’ Terry Moran wrote that this was: “A truly Nixonian abuse of power by the Obama administration.”

NBC’s White House correspondent Chuck Todd said, “It didn’t seem like they had a sense of urgency about it, a real sense of outrage,” and further; “This is outrageous no matter what political party you are.”

Even MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said, “This is tyranny,” and talked about “unspeakable abuses by the IRS.”

O’REILLY: OK. I got a letter from Kathy LaMaster (ph), Fresno, California. I said I would read one letter from the folks, all right?

OBAMA: All right.

O’REILLY: “Mr. President, why do you feel it’s necessary to fundamentally transform the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity and success?”

OBAMA: I don’t think we have to fundamentally transform the nation…

O’REILLY: But those are your words.

MER: Just because President Obama has said he wants to “fundamentally transform the nation,” numerous times in the past, this doesn’t mean he actually wants to do it, O’Reilly!

OBAMA: I think that what we have to do is make sure that here in America, if you work hard, you can get ahead. Bill, you and I benefitted from this incredible country of ours, in part, because there were good jobs out there that paid a good wage, because you had public schools that functioned well, that we could get scholarships if we didn’t come from a wealthy family, in order to go to college.

O’REILLY: Right.

OBAMA: That, you know, if you worked hard, not only did you have a good job, but you also had decent benefits, decent health care…

O’REILLY: They’re cutting me off…

OBAMA: — and for a lot of folks, we don’t have that. We’ve got to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to expand the middle class…

MER: President Obama’s idea of “expanding the middle class” is making sure everyone has a “good paying job” at a fast food restaurant, enrollment in Obamacare, and all the food stamps you can get your hands on, along with any other government benefits that may apply.

O’REILLY: All right…

OBAMA: — and work hard and people who are working hard can get into the middle class.

O’REILLY: I think — I — you know, I know you think maybe we haven’t been fair, but I think your heart is in the right place.

MER: Not even that is a fair statement, Mr. O’Reilly.

Please note that the full transcript of this interview is available on-line as well as the full video record of the interview. Watch the video if you want to get the full effect of President Obama’s condescending tone which we all know and love!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 28, 2018 0

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

President Trump sat down with “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace, for an interview, November 18, 2018, regarding his first two years in the nation’s highest office.

This blog is my reaction to CNN Editor, Chris Cillizza’s reaction to the Chris Wallace interview.

Mr. Cillizza went through the transcript from the interview and picked out, in his words, “the most, uh, memorable lines” of the interview in his opinion.

Mr. Cillizza had no positive reaction to anything The President said, of course. He was only looking for comments by The President to be critical of.

Here are President Trump’s statements (PT), Chris Cillizza’s comment (CC), and my reaction to it all (MER.)

PT: “There was no collusion whatsoever, and the whole thing is a scam.”

CC: “191 criminal counts, 35 people/entities charged, 6 people pleaded guilty, 1 found guilty in trial.”

MER: Robert Mueller and his motley crew have been at this “investigation” for coming up on two years now, and they have not come up with anything to do with the Trump campaign’s imaginary involvement with Russia or anything against The President. All of these charges and criminal counts are for unrelated and miscellaneous items. Mr. Cillizza’s comments are disingenuous, and they imply The President’s comment is incorrect, when in fact The President is absolutely correct.

PT: “I won the Senate, you don’t mention that.”

CC: “He won the Senate. Not the candidates, or the party, Donald Trump won it.”

MER: President Trump was only replying to the statement in the manner it was made. Chris Wallace stated “you lost the House of Representatives…,” and President Trump Responded with, “I won the Senate, you don’t mention that.” In general, it probably would have helped Mr. Cillizza if he had actually watched the interview as opposed to just reviewing the transcript.

PT: “I won the Senate. … Number two, I wasn’t on the ballot.”

CC: “Um. So, Trump won the Senate but any losses can’t be blamed on him because he wasn’t on the ballot. [Puts on green accountant visor thing-y] Yup, this all adds up.”

MER: That’s really cute Mr. Cillizza, but disingenuous again. President Trump didn’t say “losses couldn’t be blamed” on him. He just stated the fact that he “wasn’t on the ballot,” which is true.

PT: “But I had people, and you see the polls, how good they are, I had people that won’t vote unless I’m on the ballot, OK? And I wasn’t on the ballot.”

CC: “I love a good word salad.”

MER: Granted, The President was maybe a little choppy with his wording here, but I think we all got the gist of what he was saying. I also do not recall any of President Obama’s incoherent rambling, at any point, being referred to as a “word salad.” Just saying.

PT: “And it was all stacked against Brian, and I was the one that went for Brian and Brian won.”

CC: “Brian Kemp did win the Georgia governor’s race. But it was not stacked against him. At all. The last time a Democrat was elected governor of Georgia was Roy Barnes in 1998.The last time a Democrat won Georgia in a presidential race was Bill Clinton in 1992.”

MER: With all due respect Mr. Cillizza, the race for governor was “stacked against him.” “Outside” democrat money poured into this campaign; over $65 million in total. Stacey Abrams was funded by George Soros and other democrats with seemingly endless resources. Former President Barack Obama campaigned in Georgia for Abrams, and Oprah Winfrey made campaign stops on numerous occasions as well.

PT: “Rick Scott won and he won by a lot.”

CC: “Scott won by 10,033 votes. Out of more than 8 million cast.”

MER: Technically you’re correct here, Mr. Cillizza, that was the final, official count, but that was only after the democrats were allowed to keep voting for an additional week, and conveniently misplace or lose other republican ballots during the recount. If Florida’s election results had been tabulated properly and fairly, yes, Rick Scott would have “won by a lot,” considering he was unseating a Senator who had been in office for decades.

PT: “The news about me is largely phony. It’s false. Even sometimes they’ll say, ‘Sources say.’ There is no source, in many cases, in [other] cases there is.”

CC: “Again, this is about Donald Trump not liking the news. Not about the news being “largely phony.” And the idea that mainstream media organizations make up sources is beyond ridiculous.”

MER: No, this isn’t about President Trump “not liking the news,” it’s about President Trump not liking being treated unfairly. It’s about “fake news” that is created to suit the liberal narrative, and it’s about “fake news” that very rarely cites an identifiable source. Additionally, I would classify nothing the “biased, liberal, mainstream media” does as being “beyond ridiculous.”

PT: “He’s a Hillary Clinton backer and an Obama backer.”

CC: “Trump is talking here about William McRaven, the former head of US Special Operations Command and the architect of the raid that led to the death of Osama bin Laden. Why? Because McRaven said that Trump’s attempts to undermine the press were a threat to democracy. And because Trump is incapable of seeing anything outside of a purely partisan lens. Also, Trump is wrong about McRaven’s political preferences; ‘I did not back Hillary Clinton or anyone else,’ McRaven told CNN.”

MER: Excuse me, but President Trump is absolutely right…, again. McRaven has been critical of Candidate and President Trump on numerous occasions and about numerous topics. McRaven may not have come out and announced his support for Hillary, BUT he was being considered as Hillary’s running mate for a period of time! I think we can safely put him in the democrats’ wing of the political spectrum. You then state that, “Trump is incapable of seeing anything outside of a purely partisan lens.” Please list for me any member of our nationally elected government who doesn’t view thing through a “purely partisan lens.” Please list for me anyone from your “biased, liberal, fake news media” who doesn’t view thing through a “purely partisan lens,” for that matter.

PT: “And, Chris, you know that better…, you don’t have to sit here and act like a perfect little, wonderful, innocent angel. I know you too well. I knew your father too well, that’s not your gene.”

CC: “I am frankly surprised that it took this long for Trump to turn on Wallace. Despite the obvious pro-Trump bias of lots of the shows (and people) on Fox news, Wallace is a straight-shooter and tough questioner. I’m actually surprised, given that, that Trump agreed to sit down for an interview with him.”

MER: The fact that you feel Chris Wallace is a “straight shooter,” Mr. Cillizza, actually knocks Chris Wallace down a few pegs in my book. You say you’re “surprised” President Trump agreed to an interview with Wallace, but I doubt that President Trump would turn down an interview request from most well-known interviewers. I also applaud President Trump for calling Wallace out. These interviewers are not the embodiment of integrity, decency and forthrightness that they portend to be.

PT: “I think I’m doing a great job. We have the best economy we’ve ever had.”

CC: “Modesty has never been Trump’s strong suit.”

MER: President Trump could afford to be more modest if the “biased, liberal, fake news media” were able to give him credit for anything he has accomplished or reported anything he does from a positive point of view.

PT: “I would give myself…, I would…, look…, I hate to do it, but I will do it. I would give myself an A-plus, is that enough? Can I go higher than that?”

CC: “Two things: 1) He doesn’t hate to do it, and 2) The President asked if he could give himself a grade higher than an ‘A+.’ So, here we are.”

MER: First of all, you don’t know what President Trump “hates to do,” or what he doesn’t “hate to do.” He feels he has done an excellent job, apparently, and I would tend to agree with him.

Before closing, I would like to point out that Chris Cillizza never refers to President Trump as “President Trump” or “The President.” Cillizza only refers to The President as “Trump” or “Donald Trump.” I’m sure this a conscious decision, and intentionally disrespectful, in my opinion.

President Trump typically responds in the same manner that he is addressed, and usually in an even nicer tone. He is not your typical politician, and he generally responds with an honest opinion or answer, like it or not. He doesn’t “talk down” to his audience, nor does he try to talk over their heads.

Unless you take President Trump from a predetermined position of opposition and dislike, like the “biased, liberal, fake news media” does, you have to admire and appreciate the way President Trump doesn’t mince words, and how he interacts with the “biased, liberal, fake news media.”

Stay thirsty my friends, but don’t drink that liberal Kool-Aid!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 28, 2018 0

What the heck are these “Federalist Papers” I’ve been hearing about, and why do they seem so important when we talk about “interpreting” The Constitution?

“I think the first duty of society is justice.” – Alexander Hamilton

The Federalist Papers are a collection of 85 newspaper articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, under the pen name “Publius,” to promote the ratification of the United States Constitution.

The first 77 of these essays were published, in a series, in three different New York newspapers, between October of 1787 and April of 1788. A two-volume compilation of these 77 essays and eight others was later published as “The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favor of the New Constitution, as Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787,” in March and May of 1788.

The authors of The Federalist Papers intended to influence the voters to ratify the Constitution. In “Federalist No. 1,” Alexander Hamilton set that argument in motion:

“It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.”

“Federalist No. 10” is generally regarded as the most important of the 85 articles from a philosophical standpoint. In it, James Madison discusses the destructive role of a faction in breaking apart the republic. The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative effects of factions. Madison defines a faction as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

According to historian Richard B. Morris, the essays that make up The Federalist Papers are an “incomparable exposition of The Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later American writer.”

At the time of publication, the authors of The Federalist Papers attempted to hide their identities for fear of prosecution. The authorship of the papers breaks down like this:

Alexander Hamilton (51 articles: No. 1, 6–9, 11–13, 15–17, 21–36, 59–61, and 65–85)

James Madison (29 articles: No. 10, 14, 18–20, 37–58 and 62–63)

John Jay (5 articles: No. 2–5 and 64)

Hamilton represented New York at the Constitutional Convention, and in 1789 became the first Secretary of the Treasury, until he resigned in 1795.

Madison, who is now acknowledged as the father of the Constitution, became a leading member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia (1789–1797), Secretary of State (1801–1809), and ultimately the fourth President of the United States.

Jay, became the first Chief Justice of the United States in 1789, until stepping down in 1795 to accept his election as the governor of New York.

The Federal Convention sent the proposed Constitution to the Confederation Congress, which in turn submitted it to the states for ratification at the end of September 1787. On September 27, 1787, an article by an author known only as “Cato” first appeared in the New York press criticizing the proposition. Soon after, an article by an author known as “Brutus” followed on October 18, 1787, also criticizing the newly proposed constitution. These and other articles and public letters critical of the new Constitution would become known as the “Anti-Federalist Papers.” These articles were the impetus for Alexander Hamilton’s response, as he decided to launch his defense and explanation of the proposed Constitution to the people of the state of New York. He wrote in “Federalist No. 1” that the series would “endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.”

Alexander Hamilton chose the pen name “Publius.” While many other pieces representing both sides of the constitutional debate were written under Roman pen names such as “Publius,” “Caesar,” “Brutus” and “Cato.” In ancient Rome, Publius Valerius helped found the ancient republic of Rome. He was also known as Publicola, which meant “friend of the people.”

Although written and published relatively quickly, “The Federalist articles” were widely read and greatly influenced the shape of America, politically. Hamilton, Madison and Jay published the essays at a rapid pace. At times, three to four new essays appeared in the papers in a single week. Hamilton also encouraged the reprinting of the essays in newspapers outside of New York State.

In Federalist No. 1, Hamilton listed six topics to be covered in the subsequent articles:

“The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity” – covered in No. 2 through No. 14

“The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union” –covered in No. 15 through No. 22

“The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed to the attainment of this object” – covered in No. 23 through No. 36

“The conformity of the proposed constitution to the true principles of republican government” – covered in No. 37 through No. 84

“Its analogy to your own state constitution” – covered in No. 85

“The additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty and to prosperity” – covered in No. 85.

Here is a list of The Federalist Papers in order:

# Date, Title, Author

1 October 27, 1787, General Introduction, Alexander Hamilton

2 October 31, 1787, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, John Jay

3 November 3, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, John Jay

4 November 7, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, John Jay

5 November 10, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, John Jay

6 November 14, 1787, Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States, Alexander Hamilton

7 November 15, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States, Alexander Hamilton

8 November 20, 1787, The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States, Alexander Hamilton

9 November 21, 1787, The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, Alexander Hamilton

10 November 22, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, James Madison

11 November 24, 1787 The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy, Alexander Hamilton

12 November 27, 1787, The Utility of the Union In Respect to Revenue, Alexander Hamilton

13 November 28, 1787, Advantage of the Union in Respect to Economy in Government, Alexander Hamilton

14 November 30, 1787, Objections to the Proposed Constitution From Extent of Territory Answered, James Madison

15 December 1, 1787, The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, Alexander Hamilton

16 December 4, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, Alexander Hamilton

17 December 5, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, Alexander Hamilton

18 December 7, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, James Madison

19 December 8, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, James Madison

20 December 11, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, James Madison

21 December 12, 1787, Other Defects of the Present Confederation, Alexander Hamilton

22 December 14, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Other Defects of the Present Confederation, Alexander Hamilton

23 December 18, 1787, The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union, Alexander Hamilton

24 December 19, 1787, The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered, Alexander Hamilton

25 December 21, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered, Alexander Hamilton

26 December 22, 1787, The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered, Alexander Hamilton

27 December 25, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered, Alexander Hamilton

28 December 26, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered, Alexander Hamilton

29 January 9, 1788, Concerning the Militia, Alexander Hamilton

30 December 28, 1787, Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

31 January 1, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

32 January 2, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

33 January 2, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

34 January 5, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

35 January 5, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

36 January 8, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

37 January 11, 1788, Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government, James Madison

38 January 12, 1788, The Same Subject Continued, and the Incoherence of the Objections to the New Plan Exposed, James Madison

39 January 18, 1788, The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles, James Madison

40 January 18, 1788, The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained, James Madison

41 January 19, 1788, General View of the Powers Conferred by the Constitution, James Madison

42 January 22, 1788, The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered, James Madison

43 January 23, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered, James Madison

44 January 25, 1788, Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States, James Madison

45 January 26, 1788, The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered, James Madison

46 January 29, 1788, The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared, James Madison

47 January 30, 1788, The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts, James Madison

48 February 1, 1788, These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other, James Madison

49 February 2, 1788, Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government, James Madison

50 February 5, 1788, Periodic Appeals to the People Considered, James Madison

51 February 6, 1788, The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments, James Madison

52 February 8, 1788, The House of Representatives, James Madison

53 February 9, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: The House of Representatives, James Madison

54 February 12, 1788, The Apportionment of Members Among the States, James Madison

55 February 13, 1788, The Total Number of the House of Representatives, James Madison

56 February 16, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: The Total Number of the House of Representatives, James Madison

57 February 19, 1788, The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many, James Madison

58 February 20, 1788, Objection That The Number of Members Will Not Be Augmented as the Progress of Population Demands Considered, James Madison

59 February 22, 1788, Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members, Alexander Hamilton

60 February 23, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members, Alexander Hamilton

61 February 26, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members, Alexander Hamilton

62 February 27, 1788, The Senate, James Madison

63 March 1, 1788, The Senate Continued, James Madison

64 March 5, 1788, The Powers of the Senate, John Jay

65 March 7, 1788, The Powers of the Senate Continued, Alexander Hamilton

66 March 8, 1788, Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered, Alexander Hamilton

67 March 11, 1788, The Executive Department, Alexander Hamilton

68 March 12, 1788, The Mode of Electing the President, Alexander Hamilton

69 March 14, 1788, The Real Character of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

70 March 15, 1788, The Executive Department Further Considered, Alexander Hamilton

71 March 18, 1788, The Duration in Office of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

72 March 19, 1788, The Same Subject Continued, and Re-Eligibility of the Executive Considered, Alexander Hamilton

73 March 21, 1788, The Provision For The Support of the Executive, and the Veto Power, Alexander Hamilton

74 March 25, 1788, The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

75 March 26, 1788, The Treaty Making Power of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

76 April 1, 1788, The Appointing Power of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

77 April 2, 1788, The Appointing Power Continued and Other Powers of the Executive Considered, Alexander Hamilton

78 May 28, 1788 (book) June 14, 1788 (newspaper), The Judiciary Department, Alexander Hamilton

79 May 28, 1788 (book) June 18, 1788 (newspaper), The Judiciary Continued, Alexander Hamilton

80 June 21, 1788, The Powers of the Judiciary, Alexander Hamilton

81 June 25, 1788 and June 28, 1788, The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority, Alexander Hamilton

82 July 2, 1788, The Judiciary Continued, Alexander Hamilton

83 July 5, 1788, July 9, 1788 and July 12, 1788, The Judiciary Continued in Relation to Trial by Jury, Alexander Hamilton

84 July 16, 1788, July 26, 1788 and August 9, 1788, Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered, Alexander Hamilton

85 August 13, 1788 and August 16, 1788, Concluding Remarks, Alexander Hamilton

As you can see, the list of constitutional topics covered in “The Papers” is quite extensive and very encompassing. “The Papers” can sometimes help us when interpreting The Constitution by providing the original intentions of the framers and by giving us a little extra insight.

By 2000, The Federalist Papers had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions.

If you had any questions about The Federalist Papers…, hopefully they’ve now been answered.

Stay thirsty my friends! It’s always better to be more knowledgeable than not.

“The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.” – James Madison, 4th President of The Unites States

“The loss of liberty to a generous mind is worse than death.” – Alexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington

“America belongs to ‘We the People.’ It does not belong to The Congress. It does not belong to special interest groups. It does not belong to The Courts. It belongs to ‘We the People.'” – John Jay, First Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 27, 2018 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Elijah Cummings Alzheimer’s Research Institute?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 26, 2018 2

Liar, liar…, pants on…, fire?

If someone’s opinion or belief is different from yours does that constitute a “lie.”

The “biased, liberal, fake news media,” the Hollywood liberals, and democrats in general, are constantly berating our President as everything negative under the Sun. They contend that every other word out of his mouth is “a lie.”

So I decided to give them a chance to convince me. I checked out some of these documented lists of “lies.” Lists that purport to contain 3,000, 4,000, even up to 5,000 documented “lies!”

Here are some of “the lies” (supposedly the worst) that “Politifact,” “The Washington Post,” “CNN,” “The (failing) New York Times,” “Esquire,” “New Yorker,” and “USA Today” claim President Trump has made:

“The Democrats want to invite caravan after caravan of illegal aliens into our country. And they want to sign them up for free health care, free welfare, free education, and for the right to vote.”

(What’s a “lie” about this statement? I would ask Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer [the two that tell the rest of the democrats what to think] if they have a problem with this statement and I’m sure they would say ‘no.’)

“Democrats oppose any effort to secure our border.”

(If this isn’t true, please tell me what effort they have not opposed.)

“Many presidents don’t get the chance to put a Supreme Court justice on.”

(There have actually been four, with Jimmy Carter being the most recent. I’m not sure if four should be considered “many,” but I would also have a hard time calling this a “lie.”)

“Every single Democrat in the U.S. Senate has signed up for open borders, and it’s a bill, it’s called the ‘open borders bill.’”

(Ooops. These people pointing their fingers need to check out the “fine print” of Diane Feinstein’s “Borders Bill.” And yes, every single democrat senator backs it.)

“Senator Richard Blumenthal said he served in Vietnam, in Da Nang Province. ‘Soldiers dying left and right as we battled up the hill.’ And then he cried when they (the press) caught him.”

(Nothing false about this one. He may not have actually cried tears, but…..)

Says Republicans “just passed” the Veterans Choice program after 44 years of trying. “They’ve been trying to pass that one for many, many decades.”

(Well, I’m approaching retirement age myself, and I can recall this being an issue quite aways back, so they are obviously splitting hairs over that “44 years” number. Does it really make that big of a difference? I guess it does when you’re looking to hang someone out to dry over a technicality of a year here or a year there.)

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, “we lost millions of jobs.”

(I’m not sure what their issue is with this statement. They obviously don’t agree with his number of jobs, but I think it would be hard to prove otherwise.)

“96 percent of (Google News) results on ‘Trump News’ are from National Left-Wing Media.”

(Speaking from personal experience, I would have to go along with The President, not to mention the recent documenting of Google’s left leaning policies and unfair search practices.)

“U.S. Steel just announced that they are building six new steel mills.”

(How can anyone argue what U.S. Steel announced to him?)

Says the Steele dossier “was responsible for starting” Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia.

(Well, it was. Other than the now debunked dossier, which was used as the basis for spying on him and his campaign, and as the basis for “Russian collusion claims,” there would have been no starting point for the assignment of a special counsel. Period.)

“The Electoral College is much more advantageous for Democrats.”

(As with many of these statements, they are opinions, and therefore they cannot be “lies.” I would have to agree, however, with The President here, as democrats are basically given a 100 electoral vote head start between California, New York and Illinois.)

“Many countries (in NATO) owe us a tremendous amount of money for many years back, where they’re delinquent, as far as I’m concerned, because the United States has had to pay for them.”

(What issue the “biased, liberal, fake news media” has with this statement is beyond me. I think it has been well documented that most, if not all, of our NATO “friends” have been taking advantage of the United States’ for quite a few years now.

“I have watched ICE liberate towns from the grasp of MS-13.”

(Again, I know the “biased, liberal, fake news media” does not normally report on the positive accomplishments of ICE, only negatively spun stories offered up by their democratic partners in crime.)

“Watch those GDP numbers. We started off at a very low number, and right now we hit a 3.2 (percent). Nobody thought that was possible.”

(I’m sure some people thought it was possible, but most people in the “biased, liberal, fake news media didn’t. Again, hard to call this a “lie.”)

Regarding the current immigration laws: A “horrible law” requires that children be separated from their parents “once they cross the Border into the U.S.”

(Again, it seems we’re splitting hairs here. It is a “horrible law,” and it only applies to people who choose to enter the U.S. illegally.)

Says North Korea has “agreed to denuclearization.”

(Well, Kim Jong-un did agree to work towards denuclearization. Where’s the “lie.”)

“Only fools, or worse, are saying that our money losing Post Office makes money with Amazon. THEY LOSE A FORTUNE, and this will be changed.”

(Someone is doubting that the Post Office is, and has been, losing money? Someone doubts the Post Office is losing money on probably their biggest customer, Amazon? Or are they doubting that President Trump is going to do something about this? In either case, it’s hard to call this statement a “lie.”)

“When I was campaigning, I was talking about 18 and 20 years (when) wages effectively went down. Now, for the first time in a long time, they’re starting to go up for people.”

(Based on my own experience, it was about 20 years ago when people were asked to take wage cuts or wage freezes, and “now, for the first time in a long time, they’re starting to go up for people.” No “lie” here.)

“Democrats are nowhere to be found on DACA.”

True. No lie here. The democrats failed to deal with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), or the “Dreamers” law, while they had the presidency, and majorities in the House and the Senate in 2008-2010, and the democrats chose to reject a very good compromise offered by President Trump in 2017. It is true that the democrats have abandoned the DACA recipients.)

The immigration visa lottery “randomly hands out green cards without any regard for skill, merit, or the safety of American people.”

(True. No lie here. This lottery system, credited to Senator Charles Schumer, is an absolute joke and an absolute travesty. How this law ever got passed is beyond me. The democrats just have to own this mess instead of claiming President Trump is “lying” about it.)

“We enacted the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history.”

(True. No lie here. I’m not sure how they can even challenge this, whatsoever.)

There is “substantial evidence of voter fraud.”

Again, True. There definitely is “substantial evidence of voter fraud.” Especially after the recent ballot counting debacles in Florida and Georgia.)

“We essentially repealed Obamacare because we got rid of the individual mandate … and that was a primary source of funding of Obamacare.”

(Ok, Obamacare wasn’t “essentially repealed,” but taking away the individual mandate got rid of the problem of people being forced to buy lousy insurance, thus neutering the entire system for the most part. In this case I would say we’re looking at more an exaggeration as opposed to a “lie.”)

“Hillary Clinton lied many times to the FBI.”

(That is the President’s opinion, and mine as well by the way. Again, opinions by definition cannot be “lies.” I believe honest people using basic common sense would also arrive at this conclusion.)

Wages “haven’t gone up for a long time.”

(No lie here. Please refer to my statement above regarding wages going up.)

Untaxed corporate earnings used to be “$2.5 trillion…, I guess it’s $5 trillion now. Whatever it is, it’s a lot more. So we have anywhere from 4 (trillion) to 5 or even more trillions of dollars sitting offshore.”

(Based on the President’s language here, how can you call this a “lie?” It’s obvious that he is “ball parking,” or “guesstimating” his figures here. He is just trying to get the idea across that “Whatever it is, it’s a lot more.”)

“We’ve signed more bills, and I’m talking about through the legislature, than any president ever.”

(Granted, several modern presidents have signed more, but not in the same short time frame of his first year and a half.)

“All pipelines that are coming into this country from now on has to be American steel.”

(That is his intent. How can they call this a “lie?”)

“The weak illegal immigration policies of the Obama Administration allowed bad MS 13 gangs to form in cities across U.S. We are removing them fast!”

(Again, this is true and true again. In any regard, “weak” is an opinion, even if it is correct.)

Referring to the large numbers of immigrants taken in by Sweden recently: “Look at what’s happening in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible.”

(No lie here. It is well documented that Sweden has been experiencing horrible, never seen before, problems regarding the immigrants that they took in over that few years.)

“Americans don’t care at all about my (Donald Trump’s personal) tax returns.”

(I’m sure some Americans do. I don’t. But I guess he really shouldn’t over-generalize the feelings of “Americans” in general. But again, that’s his opinion and hard to characterize it as a “lie.”)

“We had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the Electoral College.”

(I’m guessing the “biased, liberal, fake news media” has a problem with his use of the term “landslide,” however, his electoral victory was 304-227, or 57%-43%. In politics, a victory by more than 10% is commonly referred to as a landslide, so…)

“I have tremendous support from women.”

(Again, his opinion.)

Referring to his standing room only rallies: “The media never shows the crowds.”

(They have at times, but they usually don’t. Again, I would classify it as an exaggeration, not a “lie.”

Says Hillary Clinton was “let off the hook” for her email scandal while Gen. David Petraeus had his life “destroyed for doing far, far less.”

(Again, true. Petraeus was appointed CIA Director by Barack Obama, and served as the CIA Director 2011-2012. He was found guilty of “mishandling” classified info, and he was forced to resign, based on some emails he shared with the person writing his biography. So, where’s the “lie” regarding the President’s statement?)

Says Hillary Clinton “wants to go to a single-payer plan” for health care.

(That is her ultimate goal, and she has even stated this numerous times. Again, where exactly is the “lie.”

These lists go on and on, but they are most just more of the same.

Like I mentioned, these supposed “lies” are promoted as the worst examples, so the case for the remaining claims would lose even more validity it would logically seem.

Other statements that were claimed to be “lies” were actually just “knit picking” about a detail being slightly off here or there, or slight exaggerations used to emphasize a point. The “biased, liberal, fake news media” hold President Trump to a level of scrutiny that they themselves surely could not, and do not, achieve.

Is everything that President Trump says always 100% accurate or correct? No. But accusing him of “lying” infers that he had premeditated intent to mislead, which I honestly believe he did not.

For instance, President Trump’s statements (choose any that you want) do not rise anywhere near the level of the BIG LIE told by President Obama regarding Obamacare, and repeated on more than 20 different occasions: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period.” None of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” even made a peep about that whopper!

I believe what we have here is just more of the well documented “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” except this strain of the disease has made its way into the “biased, liberal, fake news media,” exposing them for being even more biased, more liberal, and more fake than ever given credit for before.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 20, 2018 0

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

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

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

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

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

So what exactly are we talking about here?

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

What exactly is meant by “catastrophic?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about “irresponsibly?”

How about “carelessly?”

How about “stupidly?”

How about “politically” and “selfishly?”

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

Ouch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CIA has declined to comment.

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

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

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

Reidy refused to discuss his case with Yahoo News.

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

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

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

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

Sound familiar?

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

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

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

Hmmm, that’s odd.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 16, 2018 0

Thank God we have “Google” around to be our social conscience (I’m being very sarcastic by the way).

(Please refer to my two previous blogs regarding our friends at “Google,” dated September 24, 2018 and September 17, 2018 for a little background.)

When I “google” “#METOO,” why do I get a program error?

When I “goggle” “sexual misconduct at Google,” why does it come back saying, “Did you mean: sexual misconduct at the GOP?”

A couple of weeks ago, The (failing) New York Times detailed the alleged misconduct of senior executives, as well as Google’s admission that it fired 48 people for sexual harassment over the past two years.

What’s going on over there!? And who are these people?

Did they hire Harvey Weinstein while we weren’t looking? How about Matt Lauer?

Do they have a hiring pipeline of Penn State alumnae? Michigan State? Former US Olympic Gymnastic coaches?

Google employees abandoned their desks and staged a 10 minute walkout, at Google office all over the world, in protest of the company’s handling of sexual misconduct allegations.

The campaign has been dubbed “The Google Walkout For Real Change,” and the first walkouts occurred at their offices in Singapore, Zürich, Switzerland and London.

Google is headquartered in “whacky” California, of course, and has 78 offices in the US and around the world (Do they really need that many offices to run a search engine?).

Anyway, campaign organizers have said they were “disgusted” by the details of The New York Times report. They said “it is an example of a culture of complicity, dismissiveness, and support for perpetrators in the face of sexual harassment, misconduct, and abuse of power.”

These are pretty harsh and damning allegations!

Not at Google! Say it ain’t so!

Not at such a forward thinking, thoughtful, liberal, gender and racially considerate company like Google!

Google has always been considered “cutting edge” regarding company culture and work environment. Google was considered revolutionary for maximizing a flexible working atmosphere for improved productivity. Rubber exercise balls used for office chairs, cubicle free offices, wooden doors held by saw horses acting as desks, multicolored lava lamps and dogs roaming the halls led to a “comfortable” work place. This environment proved to be highly effective in increasing the creative output of its employees.

Google hired a “company chef,” who introduced the staff to health conscious and energy boosting recipes. There were weekly roller hockey games in the parking lot and weekly “TGIF meetings.” The free and informal atmosphere supposedly led to an easier exchange of ideas.

The free and informal atmosphere has apparently led to more than just an easier exchange of ideas!

Google employees have a list of five demands for change. Here they are in the campaign’s own words:

An end to Forced Arbitration in cases of harassment and discrimination for all current and future employees.

A commitment to end pay and opportunity inequity.

A publicly disclosed sexual harassment transparency report.

A clear, uniform, globally inclusive process for reporting sexual misconduct safely and anonymously.

Elevate the Chief Diversity Officer to answer directly to the CEO and make recommendations directly to the Board of Directors. Appoint an Employee Rep to the Board.

I’m really surprised by these demands…, not because they are so “over the top,” but because they are such “no brainers.”

How can a company be so “cutting edge” on one hand and anchored in the Middle Ages on the other?

Do they have an “HR” department at Google? I assume they do. If so, what have they been doing? Were they all too busy bouncing around on their rubber exercise balls?

Google CEO, Sundar Pichai, said he and management support the protest and are listening to staff.

Isn’t that nice?!

He also said, “We let ‘Googlers’ know that we are aware of the activities planned for Thursday and that employees will have the support they need if they wish to participate.”

Isn’t that nice again?!

“Employees have raised constructive ideas for how we can improve our policies and our processes going forward. We are taking in all their feedback so we can turn these ideas into action.”

Here are some of their constructive ideas (leaked exclusively to MrEricksonRules.com) to improve the company’s policies:

“Executives should be required to at least throw a blanket on top of their desk before throwing employees on them and having their way with them.”

“Executives should be required to follow through with promised increases in pay and/or promotions after “services” have been officially rendered.”

“Executives should be required to leave their office door unlocked before choosing to chase their secretaries around the office, in an effort to demonstrate fairness, and the potential opportunity for the secretary to escape.”

These “constructive ideas” all seem quite reasonable, don’t they?

Sundar Pichai and Larry Page, the CEO of Google’s parent company Alphabet, both apologized to staff last week for the company’s record on sexual misconduct. Pichai reinforced that apology in an email to staff this week.

Isn’t it nice to know that Sundar and Larry offered their sincerest apologies?

They’re sorry alright. Sorry they got caught!

The seriousness of these accusations coupled with mass employee walkouts would seem to call for more than just apologies!

Perhaps Sundar and/or Larry need to be shown the door, along with a few of their friends!

Perhaps Google executives should worry about their own behavior before worrying about manipulating search results in order to mute conservative viewpoints and push liberal leaning results!

Perhaps Google executives should stop claiming to know what’s best for the rest of us when they can’t even keep their pants on at work!

The unabashed hypocrisy demonstrated by liberal “know-it-alls” never ceases to amaze me.

I’m sure we won’t have to wait too long for our next installment of “As the World Googles.”

Stay tuned.

Thanks to Jake Kanter, of Business Insider, for contributing to this article.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 14, 2018 2

President Trump’s economy has been making deposits and it’s earning interest!

What I’m talking about here is the federal funds interest rate.

Simply put, in the United States, the federal funds rate is the interest rate at which banks and credit unions get money from the Federal Reserve.

The lower the fed rate is, the lower the rate that businesses and consumers pay when they borrow money.

The lower the fed rate is, the lower the rate is that we earn on CDs, Savings accounts, etc.

The federal funds target interest rate is determined by a meeting of the members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FMOC) which normally occurs eight times a year, or about every seven weeks.

The FOMC consists of twelve members, the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and four of the remaining eleven Reserve Bank presidents, who serve one-year terms on a rotating basis.

As of September 2018, the target range for the Federal Funds Rate is 2.00–2.25%. This represents the EIGHTH increase in the target rate since tightening began in December 2015 (only a month after President Trump was elected). Obama never experienced even ONE increase.

The last full cycle of rate increases occurred between June 2004 and June 2006 as rates steadily rose from 1.00% to 5.25%. This occurred during the presidency of Republican President George W. Bush.

The Federal Reserve then began lowering rates in September 2007. Between September 2007 and December 2008 the target rate fell from 5.25% to a range of 0.00–0.25%, the lowest rate in the Federal Reserve’s history. This occurred as Democrat President Barack Obama took office and the rate remained at 0.25 or less his remaining 7 years in office.

So Obama’s economy basically enjoyed 7-8 years of “free money” from the government and still could not pick itself off of the floor.

Additionally, I find it peculiar that “The Fed” NEVER chose to increase its rate under democrat president Obama, but increased the rates on a regular basis under republican presidents, Bush and Trump.

There are two ways to react to this. Either we had rate increases under presidents Bush and Trump because their economies were more successful and warranted them (which Obama would argue is not the case), or, the individuals at “The Fed” are a biased group that did all that they could do (rates of 0.0%) to prop up the Obama economy.

I suspect it’s a little of both, but it is annoying when we hear former President Obama take any credit for President Trump’s economy, when the Obama economy could not generate enough steam to even get the Fed’s rate off of ZERO PERCENT.

Of course, the “biased fake news media” has chosen to report and emphasize the negative aspect of the story here (higher interest rates for consumers) rather than report on the general overwhelming success of our economy. It is very apparent now that they are just unwilling to give President Trump ANY credit for anything that could be perceived as positive.

CNN Business News or all the people out there crying because they are currently paying the outrageous rate of 5.0% on a home loan are not going to get any sympathy from me. When my wife and I got our first home loan the rates were between 11.0% and 13.0%! And they had been higher than that!

President Trump has said he is concerned and mad about rising interest rates. He’s worried The Fed is raising interest rates too fast, in a way that will unnecessarily slow the economy, because they’re concerned about a “phantom inflation threat.”

All in all, I guess these are good concerns and good problems to have.

President Obama never had to worry about his economy being slowed down.

If it would have been slowed down any more it would have going in reverse!

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 13, 2018 0

Ballots cast for democrats are like rabbits; if you leave them sit around long enough, they start to multiply! – MrEricksonRules

Yes, isn’t it funny that they NEVER seem to find any ballots “laying around” that increase the republican’s vote total?

Why is that?

Maybe it’s because THE REPUBLICANS DON’T CHEAT!!!!!

We go through the same crap every election cycle, and it’s about time we took some serious steps to address it.

Please check out my prior blog from November 5, 2018: “It’s not “just” one vote. It’s MY one vote!” for my ideas on that subject. I also have numerous earlier blogs that discuss the issue of voting as well, which are all worth checking out.

It is now three days after the midterm elections, and some states are still counting ballots and finding ballots.

In Arizona, Democrat candidate Kyrsten Sinema has suddenly taken a 9,600 vote lead over Republican Martha McSally late Thursday, and they say there are still some 400,000 votes left to count! McSally was ahead by 17,000 votes as of early Thursday.

In Florida, Republican Senate candidate and current governor Rick Scott complained, “Late Tuesday night, our win was projected to be around 57,000 votes. By Wednesday morning, that lead dropped to 38,000. By Wednesday evening, it was around 30,000. This morning, it was around 21,000. Now, it is down to 15,000!”

Scott continued, saying: “On election night, Broward County said there were 634,000 votes cast. At 1 a.m. today, there were 695,700 ballots cast on Election Day. At 2:30 p.m. today, the number was up to 707,223 ballots cast on Election Day. And we just learned, that the number has increased to 712,840 ballots cast on Election Day. In Palm Beach County, there are 15,000 new votes found since election night!”

“So, it has been over 48 hours since the polls closed and Broward and Palm Beach Counties are still finding and counting ballots, and the Supervisors, Brenda Snipes and Susan Bucher, cannot seem to say how many ballots still exist or where these ballots came from, or where they have been.”

The state of Georgia seems to be experiencing this strange democrat ballot phenomenon in their governor’s race as well.

Armies of lawyers, for both sides, are poised and at the ready in all three states.

This whole voting business should not be this hard people!

Republican Senate candidate Rick Scott is concerned about possible “rampant fraud” in the election, and he filed lawsuits late Thursday against the top election officials in two heavily Democratic counties, as they continue to report “new votes” and three top races in the state appear headed for recounts.

According to Gregg Re of Fox News, “In their lawsuit against Broward County, Scott and the National Republican Senatorial Committeee (NRSC) allege that officials there are hiding critical information about the number of votes cast and counted. And in a parallel suit against Palm Beach County, Scott and the NRSC charge that the election supervisor there illegally used her own judgment to determine voter intent when reviewing damaged or incorrectly filled-out absentee ballots, while refusing to allow impartial witnesses to monitor the process.”

“I will not stand idly by while unethical liberals try to steal an election,” Scott said at a press conference outside the Governor’s Mansion.

Republican Senator, Marco Rubio, has tweeted about “alleged incompetence if not outright complicity by Florida officials,” while charging that “Democratic lawyers were descending on the state in a calculated attempt to change the results to try and steal several statewide races.”

Those are strong words.

Also late Thursday, President Trump announced on Twitter that “Law Enforcement is looking into another big corruption scandal having to do with Election Fraud in #Broward and Palm Beach.”

A mandatory recount now appears imminent not only in Scott’s race, but also in the gubernatorial race between Democrat Andrew Gillum and Republican Ron DeSantis.

Scott’s first emergency complaint accuses Broward County Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes of being “unwilling to disclose records revealing how many electors voted, how many ballots have been canvassed, and how many ballots remain to be canvassed,” and charges that the uncertainty “raises substantial concerns about the validity of the election process.”

The NRSC specifically alleges that Snipes is in violation of the Florida Constitution and the Florida Public Records Act. They demand an emergency hearing, as well as a court order requiring Snipes to turn over information about ballots in Broward County.

Scott’s complaint against Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Susan Bucher, meanwhile, alleges first that officials there illegally refused to allow Republicans, or any witnesses, to monitor the county’s handling of damaged absentee ballots.

“Even more alarmingly,” Scott additionally claims, Bucher “failed to allow the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board” to determine, as required by law, which damaged or improperly filled-out absentee ballots were valid and how the voters of those ballots had intended to vote. Instead, Scott and the NRSC argue, Bucher and her staff simply used their own judgment when determining voters’ intent.

Senator Rubio referred to the “slow drip” of tens of thousands of additional ballots that were reported throughout the day Thursday, most of which were favorable to several Democratic candidates. Rubio said those late disclosures violated Florida election law, which necessitates that mail-in and early voting ballots be counted within 30 minutes of polls closing.

“Bay County was hit by a Cat 4 Hurricane just 4 weeks ago, yet managed to count votes and submit timely results,” Rubio wrote. “Yet over 41 hours after polls closed #Broward elections office is still counting votes?”

Rubio and Scott both made it clear they have no confidence in Snipes’ integrity.

“A U.S. Senate seat & a statewide cabinet officer are now potentially in the hands of an elections supervisor with a history of incompetence & of blatant violations of state & federal laws,” Rubio wrote, linking to a Miami Herald article describing several scandals that have gripped Broward County’s Elections Department.

Earlier this year, a judge found that Snipes had illegally destroyed ballots in a 2016 congressional contest, leading the secretary of state’s office to assign election monitors to supervise her.

At his Thursday press conference, Scott outlined some of Snipes’ troubled history.

“In 2016, Brenda Snipes’ office posted election results half an hour before polls closed, a violation of election law,” Scott said. “That same year, her office was sued for leaving amendments off of ballots. In 2014, Brenda Snipes’ fellow Democrats accused her of individual and systemic breakdowns that made it difficult for voters to cast regular ballots. All Floridians should be concerned about that.”

“I think the problems are blown out of proportion,” Snipes said in October, in an interview with The Miami Herald. “Broward is nitpicked to the bone. Other places have the same problems, different problems. It’s just that they are not spotlighted like we are.”

Broward County election officials did not return Fox News’ multiple requests for comment at this time.

Meanwhile, Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York fired back on Twitter at Trump saying: “In a democracy, no one—not even the President—can prevent the lawful counting of votes. We will not allow him or anyone else to steal this election.”

Say what Chuck?

Did you say someone might be trying to steal an election?

Hey Chuck, have you ever heard the saying, “When you point the finger of blame at someone else, three other fingers are pointing back at you?”

Shame on all of these democrats.

When the day comes that the American people fail to have any confidence at all in our election process at all, that will be the day our country will dramatically change…, and I’m afraid to say that day is not far off unless significant changes are made.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 9, 2018 0

Category: politics

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

You can have “softballs” or real questions President Obama…, and we’re all out of “softballs!”

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

What the heck are these “Federalist Papers” I’ve been hearing about, and why do they seem so important when we talk about “interpreting” The Constitution?

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

Liar, liar…, pants on…, fire?

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

Thank God we have “Google” around to be our social conscience (I’m being very sarcastic by the way).

President Trump’s economy has been making deposits and it’s earning interest!

Ballots cast for democrats are like rabbits; if you leave them sit around long enough, they start to multiply! – MrEricksonRules

Subscribe to Blog via Email