Is Pete “the punk” Buttigieg serious right now? 

Wait…, Pete who…, what?

According to Leah Simpson for The DailyMail.com, “Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg [pronounced “Booty-gag,” I believe] fully supports erasing the names of Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson from titles of prestigious annual political dinners around the country, due to their slave-owning history.”

“The Indiana politician shared his view on The Hugh Hewitt Show Friday after the radio host asked if Jefferson-Jackson dinners should be renamed everywhere because both were holders of slaves.”

erase 6

‘“Yeah, we’re doing that in Indiana. I think it’s the right thing to do,’ Buttigieg said ahead of his June 15 appearance at the event that is now named the Blue Commonwealth Dinner in his state.”

“He told The Hugh Hewitt Show Friday that ‘Jefferson is more problematic’ than Jackson.”

Oh…, so Thomas Jefferson is “more problematic” in your eyes, huh, Mr. “Booty-gag?”

Please allow me to remind you about a few things regarding Thomas Jefferson?

First of all, he lived over 200 years ago (1743-1826)!

Things were a little different over 200 years ago.

I think we need to put Thomas Jefferson and his life “in context.”

Thomas Hobbes said, “Life was still nasty, brutish, and short” in 1800. The average life expectancy was only about 37 years.  A typical day was filled with hard work of every sort. People worked six days a week and went to church on Sunday. They mostly dealt with illnesses by dying. They ate meat and grains and vegetables and whatever they could grow and kill.

There was no electricity, no running water, no educational system, no “health care” and no “social security.”

There was no way to get around, on land, besides walking or with the help of a horse.

I doubt that our friend Pete would even have lasted very long.

It was during these times that Thomas Jefferson managed to become an architect, a lawyer, the principal author of The Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, one of the founding fathers of our country, a diplomat under George Washington, the second vice president of the United States from 1797 to 1801, and the third president of the United States from 1801 to 1809.

During the American Revolution, he represented Virginia in the Continental Congress that adopted the Declaration of Independence, he served as the second Governor of Virginia from 1779 to 1781, during the American Revolutionary War.  He became the United States Minister to France in May 1785, and subsequently the nation’s first secretary of state under President George Washington from 1790 to 1793.

It’s a shame that the current mayor of South Bend, Indiana, which is about 60 miles east of Chicago, with just over 100,000 residents, and ranked 301st in the country in population, has such issues with someone “like” Thomas Jefferson.

Like they say in the world of sports, Pete Buttigieg would not be qualified to carry Thomas Jefferson’s jock!

Thomas Jefferson was a product of his times, Pete.  Jefferson having slaves at the time wasn’t anything personal.  It was what it was, that’s all.

If it weren’t for men like Jefferson, who established the absolute miracle of a country called The United States, you wouldn’t be able to stand there criticizing him.  In fact, you’d probably be a slave yourself, or at the very best a peon, working your life away based on the wishes of your masters.

“Buttigieg said the disassociation of Jefferson’s name was more of a pressing matter across the United States.”

erase 2

‘“Over time, you develop and evolve on the things you choose to honor,’ he said.”

erase 1

It’s too bad we all have not “evolved” to such an elite level as yourself Mr. Buttigieg!”

Right now, America is still a free country and we all get to choose who we choose to honor.  You can choose to honor whoever you feel is worthy of your admiration, Pete…, you know…, people like Madonna, Cher, Alec Baldwin, Whoopi Goldberg…, but as for me, I’ll stick with Thomas Jefferson as someone deserving of our admiration and appreciation.

erase 3

“However he regards the move as a way to not only acknowledge the damage of the enslavement of people but to make it clear racism still thrives in America.”

I wouldn’t say “racism is thriving in America,” although the democrats sure do love to promote it.  Racism is actually a cottage industry for many liberals.

Racism obviously exists though, and it always will exist to some extent.

For most people back in Jefferson’s era, slavery wasn’t about racism, however, it was about business.

From The Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness. – Thomas Jefferson

erase 4

Buttiġieġ is a Maltese surname, derived from an Arabic word, meaning chicken owner, or in this case “chicken sh#t.”

Mayor Buttigieg has bad-mouthed Thomas Jefferson on race, but according to Wikipedia, “In 2012, Buttigieg demoted South Bend police chief Darryl Boykins (the city’s first ever African American police chief) after a federal investigation found that the police department had improperly recorded telephone calls. He also fired the police department’s communications director, who had ‘discovered the recordings but continued to record the line at Boykins’ command.’ The police communications director alleged that the recordings captured four senior police officers making racist remarks and discussing illegal acts. Boykins sued the city for racial discrimination over being demoted by the mayor [Mayor Buttigieg], arguing that the taping policy existed under previous police chiefs, who were white…, resulting in the city’s spending over $800,000 on out-of-court settlements.

Hmmm…, that sounds like a racist type issue there Mr. Mayor.  And you must have been guilty since you opted to settle for over $800,000. And not of your own money, of course, but with money from the hardworking taxpayers of your fair city.

Typical liberal hypocrisy on display…, again.

erase 5

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

 

“Should a White Man Be the Face of the Democratic Party in 2020?” – A recent headline in The New York Times.

The democrat party and liberals in general continually like to label conservatives, and President Trump specifically, as racists (anti-people of color), misogynists (anti-women), along with having phobias concerning any other type of personal delineation you can name.

It must be a heavy burden, maintaining this “enlightedness” on a daily basis.

whitemales 6

But we all have our crosses to bear.

I would argue that the liberal “enlightedness” of 2019 and 2020 is racist (anti-white) and misandrous (anti-men).

Approximately 70% of the U.S. population is “white,” which equates to roughly 225 million people, with males specifically accounting for about 110 million of those.

On the surface, that would not seem to be a very wise position for the democrats to be coming from.

But being wise, fair, and tolerant is not their current M.O. (“modus operandi,” or “method of operating”).

Why does everything have to be viewed through the spectrum of race, gender, culture and sexual orientation with the left?

Shouldn’t their goal be to just nominate the best person “to be the face of the democrat party in 2020,” regardless of race, gender, culture and sexual orientation?

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

I think Dr. King would be disappointed that democrats and liberals were the ones standing in the way of that dream.

The comical thing, however, is that even with all of this “anti-white male” talk flying around the democrat party, their leading candidates right now are all white males!

Remember, however, in liberal land, what you say is more important than what you actually do.

whitemales 1

The top four I am referring to are: “Creepy Uncle” Joe Biden, “Crazy” Bernie Sanders, Beto “O’Dork” O’Rourke and Pete “Booty-gag” Buttigieg.

Candidates of a more “preferred” race and/or gender are Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillebrand, Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker, although they currently trail the four “white devils” by a significant amount in the polls.

whitemales 2

One of these “preferred” candidates will undoubtedly be chosen as the vice-presidential candidate to balance out the regrettable white male presidential candidate.

Howard Kurtz for Fox News adds, “… isn’t it also a discriminatory impulse to say perhaps a white male candidate should be denied the nomination on the grounds of race and sex?  Doesn’t that go against what we’ve always heard about wanting a color-blind and gender-neutral society?”

whitemales 4

The New York Times article piece says that “Democrats have seen the strong diversity in their field … become somewhat overshadowed by white male candidates.”  The article then asks, “What’s the bigger gamble: to nominate a white man and risk disappointing some of the party’s base, or nominate a minority candidate or a woman who might struggle to carry predominantly white swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that both Barack Obama and President Trump won?”

Hmmm…, so Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are considered “white swing states” by the liberals?  Interesting.  So even entire states have a racial determination in their eyes.

whitemales 7

Believe me my democrat friends…, there is no “gamble” for you no matter who you nominate.  Who else are the great confused liberal masses going to vote for?

President Trump!?

And those “unicorn” voters who identify as “independents” are even more confused than the confused liberal masses.

If any of these “independents” had an IQ higher than that of a jackass, the difference between President Trump and any of these democrat candidates should be readily apparent.  How anyone could be “undecided” going into the 2020 presidential election is beyond me.

whitemales 3

There is going to be well over a billion dollars spent on this election, trying to persuade about 1,000 “independent” idiots.

Everyone else is spoken for.

That’s about $1 million a vote by the way…, and they’ll probably end up voting for the Green Party candidate anyway!  Or not bother to vote at all because they still couldn’t make up their mind!

It’s a mad, mad, mad world.

whitemales 5

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

C’mon democrats…, sing along…, Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya…, oh Lord Kumbaya.

Our illustrious democrat controlled House of Representatives bravely voted to condemn “all hate,” last week!

Does that even need to be voted on?

Do they need a vote to instruct their members to keep breathing?

Well…, they didn’t really vote to condemn “all hate.”

It’s still okay to “hate” President Trump, anyone in his family and anyone associated with him, politically or otherwise.

It’s still okay to “hate” those evil “pro-lifers.”

It’s still okay to “hate” those people who wear those red “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) hats.

It’s still okay to “hate” those uneducated and deplorable Trump supporters.

It’s still okay to “hate” conservatives in general.

There…, you see?  There’s still plenty of hate to go around!

Democrat Representative, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, created an internal uproar after she insinuated that backers of Israel exhibited dual loyalty.  And this wasn’t her first swipe at Jewish people and supporters of Israel.  This is becoming a common occurrence for her.

omar 1

Some democrats wanted to distance themselves from Omar’s racism and religious prejudice, but, in the end, they just couldn’t do it.

According Sarah Silbiger of The New York Times, “It started as a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. Then, anti-Muslim bias was added in. After that came white supremacy. And by the end, it cited ‘African-Americans, Native Americans, and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, immigrants and others’ victimized by bigotry.”

So, in other words, it turned into a white person bashing resolution in the end, and Ms. Omar was completely left off the hook.

“The resolution condemning “hateful expressions of intolerance,” (except political intolerance, as I noted above) which passed the House by an overwhelming 407-to-23 vote Thursday afternoon, was as much a statement of Democrats’ values as their factionalism. Caught in the middle was Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who worked for days to quell the internal uproar that erupted after a freshman Democrat, Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, insinuated that backers of Israel exhibit dual loyalty.”

‘“I see everything as an opportunity,’ Ms. Pelosi told reporters Thursday morning as she announced the vote. ‘This is an opportunity once again to declare as strongly as possible opposition to anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim statements’ and ‘white supremacist attitudes.’”

“The carefully crafted measure, one Democratic aide called it a ‘kitchen-sink resolution,’ capped an emotional week for Democrats, who found themselves divided along racial and religious lines as they debated how to respond to Ms. Omar.”

Some veteran Jewish Democrats, who had pushed for a measure that would solely condemn anti-Semitism, were equally dismayed.

“We are having this debate because of the language of one of our colleagues, language that suggests Jews like me who serve in the United States in Congress and whose father earned a purple heart fighting the Nazis in the Battle of the Bulge, that we are not loyal Americans,” Representative Ted Deutch, Democrat of Florida, said Thursday morning in an emotional speech on the House floor.

“Why are we unable to singularly condemn anti-Semitism?” Mr. Deutch asked. “Why can’t we call it anti-Semitism and show we’ve learned the lessons of history?”

“Representative Lee Zeldin of New York, one of two Jewish Republicans in the House, voted no, calling the final resolution ‘spineless and disgusting,’ adding, ‘If a Republican member was pushing the anti-Semitism that Representative Omar keeps peddling, this resolution would name names.’”

Ya think?

omar 2

But Ms. Pelosi quickly explained to “reporters” that the resolution was not aimed at Ms. Omar.

“It’s not about her; it’s about these forms of hatred,” Ms. Pelosi said.

“As she spoke to reporters Thursday morning, Ms. Pelosi took a shot at President Trump and his equivocal statements after the deadly white supremacist march in Charlottesville: ‘The president may think there are good people on both sides; we don’t share that view.’”

Of course!  President Trump is the real guilty party here!  How could we forget about him!?

The vote on this resolution comes just weeks after Ms. Omar apologized for saying on Twitter that support for Israel was, “all about the Benjamins baby,” a reference to $100 bills that critics said echoed a common anti-Semitic belief that Jewish money is controlling foreign policy.

“Ms. Pelosi stopped short of asking for another apology from Ms. Omar, saying: ‘It’s up to her to explain.  But I do not believe that she understood the full weight of her words.’”

Ha!  So you’re saying Ms. Omar doesn’t know how talk or express herself correctly, Nancy?  Is that what you’re saying?

It’s funny how liberals are afforded the luxury or “misspeaking,” being taken out of context and misunderstanding how someone else is going to take their words.

None of these options are ever afforded to conservatives and/or republicans.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

omar and tlaib

 

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

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

I sincerely believe that time has arrived.

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

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

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

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

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

What does that mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Thank you to CBS News for contributing to this article.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

MLK light and darkness

 

Louis Farrakhan is suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Louis Farrakhan, the “leader of The Nation of Islam,” is calling for a “separate state” for Black Americans.  He says this is, “what God wants,” while any blacks that oppose his calling he describes as “slaves.”

According to Lukas Mikelionis of Fox News, “Farrakhan, who in recent months has made numerous anti-Semitic comments, made his call for a nation-state separate from white America in response to the question whether it’s still his and the group’s goal.”

“That’s not just my goal. That’s what God wants. Most of our people don’t want it here,” Farrakhan has said. “You love your enemy. You want to stay with your enemy. You’re in love with his wealth. I understand the fascination, slaves. I understand that. But God has something else for us.”

“The preacher went on to reiterate that neither he nor his group has changed its goal of a separate state since its creation in the 1960s.”

‘“Let me tell you what’s gonna happen. Yes I’m after a separate state. A separate nation. In the 60s what was our cry? We weren’t saying we want to integrate, we were saying ‘It’s nation time!’ he said.”

‘“Black Power. Black Power to do what? To integrate a lunch counter? Black Power to build a nation for 40 million, now near 50 million, black people,’ he added.”

‘“Yes I’m after a separate state. A separate nation. In the 60s what was our cry? We weren’t saying we want to integrate, we were saying It’s nation time!’”

Well…, let’s step back a moment Mr. Farrakhan, and take a look at what exactly we have here.

There are 325.7 million people in The United States.

“Blacks” make up only 12.6% of the population.  Does that surprise you?  The way “Blacks” act you would think they make up close to 50% of the population.  The truth is they truly are a minority…, and a small minority at that.

And how many of those “Blacks” are only half “Black?”  How many of those “Blacks” are half White, or half Asian, or half Latino?  The actual percent of true “Blacks” is really under 10% probably.

You say you want to build a nation for, “40 million, now near 50 million, black people.”

The truth is that “Black” people account for about 41 million people in The United States.  Nowhere near even approaching 50 million.

Now let’s take a look your “The Nation of Islam.”

“The Nation of Islam” is estimated (and why they don’t have a more exact count is confusing to me) to have 20,000-50,000 members.

I personally question that low figure of 20,000.  I believe it is even much less than that.

But, be that as it may, using their numbers, that’s still less than 1% of African Americans, and less than .01% of the total U.S. population.

So in reality, Louis Farrakhan is in no position to think he is representing African Americans, in general, at all.

You say you want a “separate state.”  What state exactly would that be?  Montana, Idaho…, Arizona?

And how exactly would that work?

And you frame your desire as if there is someone out here who could grant your wish.

Why would anyone establish a “black state” for you?

Perhaps you should buy an island and move your measly group of followers there and see how you would do.

Lukas Mikelionis added, “In November, Farrakhan and his groupies went on a solidarity trip to Iran and led “Death to America” chants.”

“During the trip, Farrakhan told Iranian students that ‘America has never been a democracy,’ and also led a ‘Death to Israel’ chant at the end of his talk, Iranian news agencies reported.”

I know!  Perhaps Iran would give you a portion of their country to establish your “Black State?”

Or maybe some country in Africa would welcome you back and grant you some land to “homestead” on?

Somehow, I’m guessing that’s not really what you want.

In reality, I don’t think you really know what you want.  In reality, I don’t think you’ve really thought this whole thing through…, which would be par for the course in your case.

You’re all hot air and no action Mr. Farrakhan.  If you want your own state, do something about it instead of just talking about it.  Go establish a town somewhere.  15,000-20,000 people is a small town in America.

Why don’t you start there and work up to a “nation” at a later date?

Conservatives actually have no problem with anyone creating their own destiny.  It’s your friends, the liberals, who would prefer you don’t leave “the plantation,” however.

Minister Farrakhan has actually endorsed and praised President Trump in the past, but he has been critical of him as well.  Farrakhan’s message of independence and taking responsibility for your own destiny is one most conservatives would support.  It’s too bad he has to “lob those racism bombs” out there every so often.

Farrakhan is in a politically peculiar spot.  Conservatives can’t support him because of his racist tendencies, and liberals can’t disavow him because…, well…, because he’s Black, and he’s not technically a conservative.

Isn’t it a funny world that we live in?

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

farrakhan

 

“Bullying journalists is not presidential.” – Fox News anchor Julie Banderas

President Trump called out a pair of Fox News personalities last Sunday on Twitter, saying that FOX’s John Roberts and Gillian Turner, “…have even less understanding of the Wall negotiations that the folks at FAKE NEWS CNN&NBC!”

According to Erik Pedersen for “Deadline Hollywood,” “A Fox colleague [Former Fox Report Weekend regular and current fill-in anchor Julie Banderas] hit back on the same social media platform.”

“By going on Twitter and insulting two of our journalists @realDonaldTrump is putting a target on their backs. In turn his followers will then attack @johnrobertsFox and @GillianHTurner in support on Twitter. Bullying journalists is not Presidential. Period. https://t.co/xayShIojYj — Julie Banderas (@JulieBanderas) January 28, 2019”

“A few minutes earlier, Banderas had replied to a ‘rando’ [a random tweeter] who counseled her that if she ‘can’t stand some criticism, time to find a new line of work.’ She hit back, with an ‘@POTUS’ target:

‘We can and do stand plenty of criticism every day which is fine coming from everyday viewers. Our jobs are not meant to please others. But the office of the @POTUS ought not to be the one lashing out. That’s not how this country works. That’s not how Freedom of the Press works. https://t.co/buakHRRwPO — Julie Banderas (@JulieBanderas) January 28, 2019,”

Wow…, where do I begin?

Let’s begin by suggesting that Julie Banderas put her “big girl” pants on, first of all.

Next, let’s deal with Ms. Banderas’ understanding of what “bullying” is.

Julie Banderas is saying that because President Trump accused her colleagues, John Roberts and Gillian Turner, of “…having even less understanding of the Wall negotiations that the folks at FAKE NEWS CNN&NBC!” that The President was “bullying” them.

You call this “bullying?”

Really?

How protected you must have been growing up Ms. Banderas.

You were obviously a regular visitor to the various “safe zones” back in college.

I don’t view this as “bullying,” Ms. Banderas…, I view this as The President stating his opinion, which we all still have the right to do the last time I checked (even though Nancy Pelosi is now in charge of The House of Representatives).

I tend to agree with the random tweeter who suggested that if Julie Banderas, “can’t stand some criticism, time to find a new line of work.”

Lastly, Ms. Banderas says, “We can and do stand plenty of criticism every day which is fine coming from everyday viewers. Our jobs are not meant to please others. But the office of the @POTUS ought not to be the one lashing out. That’s not how this country works. That’s not how Freedom of the Press works.”

Thank you Julie for explaining to us all “how this country works,” and how “freedom of the press works.” It must be an awful burden on you to be responsible for being the caretaker of this guarded knowledge!

The fact is that you obviously have no idea how this country works, and that the “freedom of the press” does not override or come before the freedom of speech of all citizens…, including The President of the United States.

Ms. Banderas has also said, “People used to call President Obama stupid.  People used to call him a Muslim.  People used to call him under-qualified, a sellout to America, a hater of Israel.  I mean they called him every name in the book, but you didn’t see him lash out.”

Besides the fact that all of that is true…, who was saying these things?  You can find someone saying just about anything at any time.  The difference with President Trump is that it is other elected politicians (mayors, governors, congress people and senators) saying these hurtful things about him.  It is the “biased, liberal, fake news media saying libelous things about President Trump.  It is the whole Hollywood and entertainment community saying exaggerated untruths about President Trump.

You see Julie, who “they” are makes quite a difference.  What “people” you’re talking about makes quite a difference.

Being a professional “journalist,” you should be able to make that determination on your own.

People in a position to influence others, who are confused, ought not be spouting their ill-informed beliefs for the consumption of the general public.  In this case, they need to be “lashed out” at.  And if the one “lashing out” at these people, who should know better, is The President, then so be it.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

cnn

 

“All hail ‘Creepy Uncle’ Joe Biden!  America’s racial compass!”

“The bottom line is we have a lot to root out, but most of all the ‘systematic racism’ that most of us whites don’t like to acknowledge even exists,” Biden said at an event hosted by the Rev. Al Sharpton (another individual who portends to be a representative of our national racial conscience) and the National Action Network. “We don’t even consciously acknowledge it.  But it’s been built into every aspect of our system.”

He continued, “Because when your schools are substandard, when your houses are undervalued, when your car insurance costs more for no apparent reason, when poverty rates for black Americans is still twice that of white Americans…, there’s something we have to admit.  Not you, we, White America, has to admit there’s a still a systematic racism.  And it goes almost unnoticed by so many of us.”

So here we apparently have our newest “buzzword” to be included in the racial inequality narrative.

“Systematic racism.”

According to Jenée Desmond-Harris of “Vox” media, ‘“Systemic racism’ is used to talk about all of the policies and practices entrenched in established institutions that harm certain racial groups and help other racial groups.  ‘Systemic’ distinguishes what’s happening here from individual racism or overt discrimination, and refers to the way this operates in major parts of US society: the economy, politics, education, and more.”

So basically, “systematic racism” is a comprehensive excuse to explain away any kind of failure or any kind of negative situation being experienced by anyone other than white people…, that puts the blame on White people.

John Verhovek of Good Morning America added that, “Biden also expressed optimism that positive change is on its way, referencing the historic nature of the presidential inauguration he attended 10 years ago this weekend, when Barack Obama became the nation’s first African-American president.”

Yes, “Creepy Uncle” Joe, but it’s a damn shame that Barack Obama didn’t do much more than just become the nation’s first African-American president.  He categorically failed to positively move the needle for African-Americans in any regard, while alienating many of the Whites who helped get him elected. .

‘“There I was, it just hit me, standing, waiting for a black man to come 28 miles from Philadelphia to pick me up and take me on a 128-mile ride to be sworn in as president and vice president United States.  Don’t tell me, don’t tell me things can’t change!’ Biden said to applause.”

What this last quote means exactly I’m not sure.  But I can safely say that if Blacks were the majority race in this country, at the percentage that Whites have been, and are now, we would have never seen, and would never see, a White president.

If anyone feels they have an argument to be made against my claim, please email me and make your case.  I promise to publish all of your responses in a future blog.

Oh…, and “Creepy Uncle” Joe…, speak for yourself please.  None of us other “whiteys” have been in a position to do anything about your supposed “systematic racism…,” but you have!

You’ve been in politics since 1969 “Uncle Joe!  That’s 50 years!

No one should be in politics for 50 years.

You were in the U.S. Senate from 1972-2009.  That’s 37 years!

No one should be in in the U.S. Senate for 37 years.

You were the Vice President of the United States from 2009-2017.  That’s 8 years!

What exactly did YOU do to deal with YOUR perceived “systematic racism?”

I mean besides using it to help get you re-elected?

Just sayin’.

 

P.S. – Did you know that Joe Biden’s middle name is “Robinette?”  No comment…, just throwing that out there for what it’s worth.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

joe biden

 

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑