“If liberals didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.”

That quote is by Burt Prelutsky, an award winning author and screenwriter.

The word “liberals” here covers what we would call “the swamp,” which includes establishment politicians/appointees and the “biased, liberal, fake news media.”

The latest examples of the left’s double standards have reared their heads in the forms of former Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen and former FBI Director James Comey.

For some reason, James Comey is under the impression that he is able to dictate to Congress how, when and if he will respond to their lawful subpoena to testify regarding the Clinton email scandal and the unlawful spying on the Trump campaign on his watch.

Former congressman and now Fox News contributor, Jason Chaffetz, brought up a good point when he asked, “Why is Michael Cohen prosecuted when Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder and Lois Lerner were not?”

Yes, that is a very good question, but a question that we all know the answer to as well.  The answer is that “the swamp” is very good at protecting their own, while vilifying and attacking those who threaten “the swamp” to any degree.

“With a Republican president in place and soon-to-be Democrat-run House, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has conveniently remembered that they have the ability to prosecute people who lie to Congress.  This was a power they had inexplicably forgotten about during the 10 years that Democrats were benefiting from witnesses who lied.”

And that’s not even taking into account all of the witnesses and participants who were granted complete immunity by a complicit FBI and a complicit DOJ.

“No doubt there should be consequences and accountability if you testify to Congress under oath and blatantly lie or violate the law.  But the DOJ seems to have different standards based on which party’s political fortunes will be impacted.  It is this unequal application of justice that is dividing the country and threatens peace.”

“True peace is not merely the absence of war, it is the presence of justice.” – Jane Addams, the first woman to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

“Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former attorney, struck a plea deal with the DOJ for lying to Congress.  But what about all the other egregious cases of misconduct interacting with Congress?  Why weren’t those pursued or prosecuted?”

They weren’t pursued because the people at the upper levels could not throw these people “under the bus” without them in turn throwing their bosses “under the bus.” It’s one big “CYA” lovefest!

“Let’s look back at how a very similar case was handled just a few short years ago.  After FBI Director James Comey announced there would be no charges against Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or any of her associates for a variety of potential unlawful acts, Comey testified before the House Oversight Committee.”

We know now that James Comey drafted his Hillary Clinton “forgiveness” letter months before he even heard any of the findings and evidence against her.  Her “innocence” was a predetermined outcome.

Jason Chaffetz continues by saying, “When I asked Comey specifically if he had reviewed Secretary Clinton’s testimony before the Benghazi Select Committee, he confirmed the FBI never reviewed nor considered that testimony.  As Chair of Oversight, I along with Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte sent a formal request to the DOJ.  We never even got a response.  Note the contradiction: Cohen is forced into a plea deal and Clinton’s lies to Congress were not even reviewed.”

The arrogance of the leadership of the DOJ and the FBI is outrageous.  Who does this collection of appointees and hired help think they work for?  They apparently have the impression that they don’t have to answer to anybody.  But that is not the case.  The duly elected Congress, the representatives of We the People, are charged by The Constitution to oversee and keep in line these departments on behalf of The People.

“The inconsistency always seems to conveniently favor the Democrats and penalize those connected to Donald Trump.”

“Eric Holder [Obama’s first Attorney General] became the first Attorney General (AG) in the history of the United States of America to be held in contempt of Congress.  Nearly a year after the formal vote in the House of Representatives, the DOJ said they were going to exercise prosecutorial discretion and not pursue charges.  Again, note the contrast.  Cohen is prosecuted. The Holder matter is not even presented to a grand jury as required by law.”

“Last year the DOJ settled two lawsuits involving 469 conservative groups by paying $3.5 million [in damages] for the targeting done by the IRS in suppressing their applications based on their conservative nature.  IRS employee Lois Lerner and others were never prosecuted by the DOJ.  In other words, DOJ pays for wrongdoing by the IRS but nobody is held accountable.  Yet, Cohen is the one they do pursue.”

Can you just imagine the uproar by the “biased, liberal, fake news media” if the shoe had been on the other foot?

“In the Fast & Furious gun running operation, the DOJ knowingly and willingly allowed nearly 2,000 firearms, mostly AK-47s, to be illegally purchased by drug cartels.  Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed with one of those guns.  Responding officially to Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the DOJ flatly denied the critical aspects of the case.  Ten months later the DOJ withdrew the letter because of the lies and inaccuracies.”

Former President Barack Obama has been quoted as saying, “I didn’t have any scandals during my administration.”  Just another example of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” choosing to look the other way and capitulate to the false narrative propagated by President Obama.

“Was anybody dismissed, reprimanded or prosecuted?  No, but now that the tables are turned, Cohen is being prosecuted for the much lesser crime of not fully articulating the extent of Donald Trump’s personal business dealings.”

“There isn’t enough room on the internet to list all of the examples of double standards and unequal applications of the law. The inconsistency always seems to conveniently favor the Democrats and penalize those connected to Donald Trump.  This obvious disconnect legitimately erodes faith in our justice system and further divides the country.”

This, of course, is completely fine with the democrats, as “further dividing the country” is one of their main goals.  And they are able to achieve this goal with the willing cooperation of a “fake news” and  propagandist media who twist the truth around to attack those who are actually seeking justice.

“The most sacred of the duties of a government is to do equal and impartial justice to all citizens.” – Thomas Jefferson

 

Jason Chaffetz is a Fox News contributor who was the chairman of the U.S. House Oversight Committee when he served as a representative from Utah.  He is also the author of “The Deep State: How an Army of Bureaucrats Protected Barack Obama and is Working to Destroy the Trump Agenda.”

 

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.

obama double standard

 

Extra, Extra, read all about it!  Former President Obama says, “A woman or candidate of color could beat Trump!”

So, “A woman or candidate of color could beat Trump?”  Really Mr. Obama?  “A woman or candidate of color could beat Trump?”  That’s amazing!  I never would have thought it was possible!

This statement isn’t racist or sexist at all, is it?  How about a gay man or a lesbian?  What about someone who is disabled?  Would they have a chance as well?

Barack Obama talked about the choice facing Democrats in a podcast interview with his old buddy and political strategist, David Axelrod, at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics.

What a wonderfully diverse institute of thought that must be!

Mr. Axelrod, as it turns out, is actually the institute’s director!

Wow!  It just keeps getting better!

Mr. Axelrod is also a commentator for CNN in his spare time!

Oh, well, then you know he’s gotta be good!

In the podcast, Axelrod asked Mr. Obama about, “those who say the party would make a mistake in selecting another woman or candidate of color as its presidential nominee.”

Neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Axelrod mentioned any names, regarding these beliefs, of course.

Michael Avenatti, everyone’s favorite Trump hating, Kavanaugh bashing, self-proclaimed potential democrat candidate for president in 2020 and self-righteous attorney, said in an interview with Time Magazine last month that he believes “a white man would have the best chance at winning [the presidential election of 2020].”

“I think it better be a white male,” said Mr. Avenatti, who is openly considering a White House bid. “When you have a white male making the arguments, they carry more weight.  Should they carry more weight?  Absolutely not.  But do they?  Yes.”

After some of his comments were called into question, Avenatti quickly cleared up all of the concern and confusion by explaining he was referring to “the sexism and bigotry that ‘other’ white males engage in,” not him, of course.

It is almost comical what these liberals are allowed to get away with.  Are they really listening to themselves?  A conservative would have been hung out to dry seven ways ‘till Sunday for daring to utter these insensitive words.

In fact, shortly after making his enlightened comments, Mr. Avenatti was arrested on suspicion of felony domestic violence, after his girlfriend told police he abused her at his Los Angeles apartment following an argument.

You really couldn’t make this stuff up.

Not to be outdone, another potential democrat candidate for president in 2020, Bernie Sanders, decided to put his foot in his mouth during an interview this month with “The Daily Beast,” in which he said that there are “a lot of white folks out there in Florida and Georgia who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American.”

Ah yes, Bernie, do tell about all of those rare “unicorns” in Florida and Georgia “who are not necessarily racist!”  Tell us about all of those people there who are uncomfortable voting for African-Americans as well.  Not like the people in your own well educated and noble state of Vermont!

A Sanders spokesman later clarified in a statement to NPR (a clarification we would all hear, of course, since everyone listens to NPR) that the senator was speaking about racist attacks made by ‘others’ against both [African-American] candidates [in Florida and Georgia].

Ugh.

Later in the Axelrod interview, Mr. Obama cited his own 2008 victory as well as Trump’s in 2016 as examples of how generalizations about the chances of certain candidates could prove to be wrong.

He did, however, contrast his own view of America with what he described as that of the current president.

Oh boy, here we go….

“I think what’s unique about America is our aspirations to be a large, successful, multiracial, multicultural, multiethnic, multi-religious, pluralistic democracy,” Mr. Obama said.

“Do you think that’s President Trump’s vision?”  Mr. Axelrod asked.

Obama responded without hesitation, saying, “No.  Obviously not.  We have contrasting visions about what America is.  And that’s self-apparent.”

I would respond that I feel you are off base a bit there, President Obama.

I would say that your vision for America and President Trump’s vision for America are quite similar.  Similar except for that “successful” part.

You weren’t very good at that “successful” part.

 

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.

obummer

 

Former President Barack Obama says, “Fox News viewers and New York Times readers live in entirely different realities.”

“Whether it was (Walter) Cronkite or (David) Brinkley or what have you, there was a common set of facts, a baseline around which both parties had to adapt and respond to,” Obama said during a speech at Rice University, in Houston, Texas.

Excuse me Mr. President…, but Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley?  Really?  Cronkite last anchored CBS nightly news over 37 years ago, and Brinkley last co-anchored NBC nightly news over 39 years ago!

What this means is that none of the students at Rice University had any idea of who you were talking about!  And actually, you were only 18 years old yourself when Walter Cronkite retired!  You are two years younger than me, so I have a pretty good idea about how much of these guys you remember…, and it isn’t much, believe me.

It seems like you long for the days when “there was a common set of facts, a baseline around which both parties had to adapt.”

This statement seems quite odd to me.  Aren’t “the facts” “the facts,” regardless of who happens to be reporting the news?

What former President Obama is really saying is it was easier for the mainstream media (there were only three TV news outlets at that time, CBS, NBC and ABC) and the government establishment to control the news that was fed to the common people.  They were the ones who determined what “the facts” were, along with The Associated Press (AP), The Washington Post and The New York Times.

President Obama continued by saying, “And by the time I take office, what you increasingly have is a media environment in which if you are a Fox News viewer, you have an entirely different reality than if you are a New York Times reader.”

That’s right Mr. President, because in one case you have a news outlet which tries to be “fair and balanced” and another that promotes the liberal agenda and ideology.

“If you’re somebody who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in a while.  If you’re a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on The Huffington Post website.  It may make your blood boil, your mind may not be changed.  But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship.  It is essential for our democracy,” he said.

It doesn’t happen too often, but in this case of your last statement here, I would actually tend to agree with the former president.  Everything except the part about checking out The Huffington Post!  It doesn’t get more blatantly biased and ignorant than The Huffington Post!

According to “The Independent” website, 64% of Americans surveyed in a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll said “the media” was responsible for dividing the nation rather than uniting it, and I would tend to agree, because it is the intent of the democrats to create divisions in our country, hence it is the mission of “the biased, liberal, mainstream media” to do so as well, although they would, of course, point to Fox News as the perpetrator of this “dividing,” since they have to divert any focus away from themselves.

In an apparent effort to lend additional credibility to himself, and throw shade onto President Trump and his administration, Mr. Obama went on to say that, “Not only did I not get indicted, nobody in my administration got indicted, which, by the way, was the only administration in modern history that can be said about.  In fact nobody came close to being indicted.  Partly because the people who joined us were there for the right reasons.”

OK…, timeout!

It is true that no one from your administration was indicted, but is not because they didn’t deserve to be indicted, it was because your Attorney Generals, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, were as crooked as the day is long, and they were mere puppets who did whatever they were instructed to do by you.

The former president points to a reason for this “blemishless” record as being, “Partly because the people who joined us were there for the right reasons.”

The “right reasons” of course being they were willing to do as they were told, while keeping their mouths shut.

In response to President Obama’s beliefs regarding “the news” that people are exposed to, I need to point out a few things.

One: the amount of people who read the editorial page of The New York Times is infinitesimal.  Likewise, The Wall Street Journal.

Two: the vast, vast, majority of people do not watch or listen to any kind of “news” on any kind of regular basis.

Three: Most, not all, but most, people rely on other people to do their thinking for them in families, in schools, at work, in neighborhoods, in unions, in communities and even in races and cultures. The fact of the matter is that there are very few people that can make an educated argument about any issue, besides regurgitating buzz words and reciting pre-scripted responses.

The truth is that people live in a myriad of different realities, and that is will never change.  If by some chance we ever get “boiled down” into only two different realities, we are in trouble.

Americans in general, in my opinion, need to do a better job of being informed on what’s going on around us.  It’s really kind of scary when we realize how much people don’t know and what they aren’t aware of.

Independent and well-informed thought by the people will guarantee our continued independence as a nation in the future.

 

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.

a new study shows

 

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 28th 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 100th 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.

time-welcome-to-america-its-because-they-are-fake-news-34343909

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!

 

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.

O'Really and obama cropped

 

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!

 

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.

cnn lie about trump cropped

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

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.

federalist papers

 

“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.

 

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.

An Obama Voting Atheist Called Ben Carson a "Moron" for His Faithben carson meme

I’ll be off for the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, November 22nd through November 25th, but I’ll back at it the following Monday, November 26th.

I’ll be off for the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, November 22nd through November 25th, but I’ll back at it the following Monday, November 26th.

“When you’re working on your Thanksgiving dinner, and they ask you if you’ve had enough, proudly answer, ‘I want more than enough!'” – Mr. Erickson

“Kick back in the recliner; watch football; pig out on turkey, mashed potatoes, gravy, stuffing and pumpkin pie; return to the recliner; watch more football; then take a nap; then repeat.  Is Thanksgiving a great holiday, or what!” – Mr. Erickson

See you next Monday!

see you soon made bigger

 

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑