President Trump is toooo funny, and right on point…, again!

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reported that, “President Trump retweeted a ‘photo-shopped’ image depicting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in Muslim headwear with a backdrop of the Iranian flag, in the midst of a Monday morning Twitter spree where he shared a number of posts accusing Democratic leadership of supporting the Iranian government.”

ademsiran 2

I don’t really think President Trump’s tweets should be characterized as “accusations,” but rather as restatements of actual events.

“The president’s political opponents have blasted him for ordering the drone strike against Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who has been linked to numerous attacks on American forces and more. Meanwhile, they largely have remained silent as the Iranian people have staged massive protests against their leaders, in the wake of the government shooting down a passenger plane and initially denying it.”

‘“The corrupted Dems trying their best to come to the Ayatollah’s rescue,’ said the original tweet from user @D0wn_Under.”

ademsiran 1

“Trump later summed up his views on the matter, stating, ‘The Democrats and the Fake News are trying to make terrorist Soleimani into a wonderful guy, only because I did what should have been done for 20 years.’”

“You don’t see anyone standing up for Iran. You’re not hearing any of the Gulf members. You’re not hearing China. You’re not hearing Russia,” Former US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley said.

“The only ones that are mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership, and our Democrat presidential candidates.”

EXACTLY!

How true and how pathetic.

Well…, you could add the fake news media and your usual collection of Hollywood elites to the mourning mix as well.

But, we, of course, are forced to endure our dose of propagandistic mis-information administered to counter the truth.  “This kind of statement is ridiculous, inflammatory and dangerous. Rather than inform viewers, Ambassador Haley wants to divide Americans,’ said former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile.

On the contrary, Ms. Brazile…, it is your statement which is “ridiculous” and divisive…, not ambassador Haley’s.

Tony Shaffer for the RealClear Politics website added, “As someone who went toe-to-toe with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Afghanistan, I can assure you that Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani got exactly what he deserved when he perished in a U.S. drone strike. What he certainly doesn’t deserve is praise from Democrat lawmakers who would rather mourn a war criminal than credit President Trump for making the world safer.”

ademsiran 9

ademsiran 7

“As the leader of the IRGC’s Quds Force, [“Quds Force” is Iran’s unconventional arm that operates outside of the Iran’s borders] which has been designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, Soleimani was among America’s most vociferous and aggressive foes. He was personally responsible for the deaths of thousands, including the killing and maiming of hundreds of American soldiers. He was an evil, remorseless man, and his death is a positive development for the entire world — including his own country.”

“Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, however, is currently considering a resolution that labels the strike that killed Soleimani ‘provocative and disproportionate.’”

ademsiran 12

ademsiran 11

ademsiran 8

“Disproportionate?”

How many more American soldiers would have to die to make this a proportionate action in your eyes, Nancy?

Another fifty?

Another hundred?

“Predictably, the Democrats have been stoking fears about Iran’s potential response ever since they’ve learned about Soleimani’s death, pretending that the strike jeopardized U.S. security rather than enhanced it. It seems no liberal lawmaker is immune to the lure of political opportunism in the midst of a presidential election campaign.”

ademsiran 6

We’re not supposed to send a drone strike…, we’re supposed to send pallets of cash to those that regularly chant “death to America,” ala Obama and Biden, and hope for the best.  That’s the preferred democrat strategy for dealing with Iran.

ademsiran 10

“But while the Democrats join our enemies in mourning Soleimani’s demise, those with knowledge of Soleimani’s terror campaigns are celebrating the death of a genuine war criminal.”

“This man was a terrorist in charge of an IRGC element that had been declared a terrorist organization. He was traveling, in violation of U.N. sanctions, to Iraq, with the apparent intent of inflicting harm on U.S. service members in the region. He was in a combat zone as a combatant in uniform — the legal basis to target him could not have been clearer, and the same goes for the moral justification.”

“The Democrats are politicizing this issue the way they’ve politicized every other issue since President Trump took office. They don’t even seem to care that they have to take the side of America’s enemies in order to criticize Donald Trump.”

Well said…, but who is taking the side of whom exactly?

Hmmm?

ademsiran 4

 

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

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 white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

President Trump is absolutely right…, AGAIN!

According to Brian Flood of Fox News, “[President] Trump says America would be better off without the ‘CNNs of the world’ after fiery news conference.”

“President Trump ended Wednesday’s White House joint press conference with Finnish President Sauli Niinistö by taking a shot at CNN.”

‘“The United States is a great democracy… and if the press were straight and honest, and forthright and tough, we would be a far greater nation,’ Trump said.”

anocnn 9

anocnn 10

Can anyone possibly argue the validity of that statement?

Can anyone possibly argue the correctness of that statement?

It is now commonly acknowledged that our “press” has a definite liberal bias.

It has also become apparent, particularly within the last five to ten years, that the “press” has gone beyond being bias to promoting the liberal narrative of the moment.

anocnn 2

anocnn 3

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….”

The founders of our country saw “the press” as an important component towards a healthy government and a healthy democracy.

According to Eugene Volokh and Gary T. Schwartz, Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law, for the Heritage.org website, “

This writing by the First Continental Congress in 1774, says, “The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honorable and just modes of conducting affairs.”

So what are reasonable or accepted journalistic standards?

While various codes may have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability, as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.

“…public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.”

It is not “the job” of “the press” to be oppositional or propositional.

So, again I ask, can anyone possibly argue the validity of President Trump’s statement?  Can anyone possibly argue the correctness of President Trump’s statement?

Apparently it is “the press” itself who is ready to argue The President’s point.

Again, President Trump commented “The United States is a great democracy… and if the press were straight and honest, and forthright and tough, we would be a far greater nation.”

No sooner had the words left President Trump’s mouth, a male voice from somewhere in the room shouted, “We are, Mr. President!”

“A source inside the room told Fox News the person who shouted was CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta.”

anocnn 1

anocnn 5

“Trump’s retort? ‘We would be far greater when we don’t have the CNNs of the world, who are corrupt people.’”

“Trump then thanked the attendees and walked off.”

“CNN did not immediately respond to a request for comment.”

And don’t hold your breath waiting either.

anocnn 12

In this instance, it is safe to use Jim Acosta as an example of how not to behave if you aspire to be a credible journalist.

Instead of recording and reporting, we have Jim Acosta choosing to interject himself into the story.

Again…, Acosta is an example of how not to behave if you aspire to be a credible journalist.

It also seems that CNN played right along…, demonstrating exactly what The President was referring to…, and making his point for him.

WINNING!

anocnn 13

 

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

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 white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

What are we left with if we ban anything that bothers anyone?

The answer is a paralyzed hot mess.

A “free” society is not a society that is worried about an individual’s feelings above all else.

A “free” society is a society which allows and tolerates everybody’s beliefs and feelings.

anyt 14

That being said, according to Brian Flood of Fox News, “The New York Times says airing the national anthem on TV could trigger viewers who hear ‘political overtones.’”

“Trigger?”

“Political overtones?”

anyt 5

Are we getting “political overtones” confused with patriotic overtones?

What is “political” about hearing and/or seeing the national anthem unless you’re anti-American?

anyt 13

“The New York Times ‘poo-pooed’ the long-standing tradition of television stations airing The Star-Spangled Banner because some night owl viewers could be offended by the ‘politically charged’ national anthem.”

Wait…, what?

The New York Times “poo-pooed?”

Well, like I said, they are creating a “hot mess” after all.

Again…, if you’re “offended” by the national anthem and consider it “politically charged,” then you’re probably either a very confused liberal…, someone here illegally in the first place…, or you are an enemy of our country…, and in any case I’m glad you’re offended.

anyt 4

“The piece, written by culture reporter Julia Jacobs, is headlined ‘Local TV Revives a Bygone Tradition: Airing the National Anthem,’ and declares that the song can ‘be a dividing line’ for some Americans.”

anyt 1

“Culture reporter?”  Why, how snooty and pretentious of you!

“The Times [Ms. Jacobs] noted that ‘one of popular culture’s generational divides’ is whether or not you are old enough to remember the days when ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ aired on television stations. The national anthem was historically played late at night, going back to the advent of television, typically amid visuals of patriotic imagery before the station signed off until the next morning.”

Oh really?

THIS is a generational divide of our culture?

I hardly think so, seeing that most of the people under 30 don’t even watch what us older folk would consider TV per se.  They watch things on their TV, but they don’t watch typical TV channel broadcasts, or even satellite or cable for that matter.

‘“Now, the early morning hours are filled with rebroadcasts and infomercials, eliminating any practical reason for a formal sign off,’ the Times [Ms. Jacobs] wrote.”

What kind of imbecile has nothing better to worry about than whether they’re playing the national anthem on TV at 4:00 AM in the morning or not?

That’s really digging deep to promote your anti-American ways!

anyt 2

“Some stations have revived the tradition but the Times wrote that some viewers ‘might hear political overtones’ as a result. Gray Television, CBS and Nexstar Media Group have led the way, with the National Anthem now played on more than 350 stations across America, according to the Times.”

‘“The decision to revive the anthem tradition comes at a time when overt allegiance to The Star-Spangled Banner has become one of the lines that separate blue and red America,’ the Times reporter wrote.”

Why say “blue and red?”  Why not say liberals and conservatives, or democrats and republicans?

Let’s not be afraid to name those who are overtly anti-America and those who are overtly pro-America.

Let’s draw a clear line and let people choose what side they’re on.

anyt 6

“Author, Tim Young asks, ‘Should it shock anyone at this point that the New York Times is trying to get people to be outraged at the airing of the National Anthem?’”

anyt 12

‘“It’s inspiring that local news is returning our National Anthem to an important place in our culture.  It’s astonishing that The Times would see that as a bad thing,’ Media Research Center vice president Dan Gainor told Fox News. ‘But if you pay close attention to the story, the paper admits that the left, including journalists, doesn’t like the national anthem.  That shows exactly who and what they really are.’”

Yes it does, Mr. Gainor…, yes it does.

“The paper admits that television executives haven’t heard many complaints and feedback has been ‘overwhelmingly positive,’ but that tidbit is buried roughly 1,400 words into the story.”

anyt 9

“Political satirist and author Tim Young told Fox News that this story “truly reveals the mindset” of the Gray Lady [“the Gray Lady” is a nickname for The New York Times newspaper].”

‘“Should it shock anyone at this point that the New York Times is trying to get people to be outraged at the airing of the national anthem? Their piece is written as if viewers should be skeptical of every element of the song and accompanying video,’ Young said. ‘They don’t like America and its anthem and they want you to dislike it as well.’”

anyt 11

“In the span of a week, the Washington Post calls a terrorist psychopath a ‘religious scholar’ and the Times is upset about the national anthem being played. These are supposed to be America’s top two news publications, and they seemingly hate America.”

anyt 10

What if I said I find The New York Times and The Washington Post offensive?

Would they maintain their integrity and shut down the publication of their newspapers?

Of course not.

People who find liberal speech or actions offensive are dismissed out of hand and ignored by the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media.”

In this fascist, liberal socialist world, they are promoting, the arbiters of what is deemed offensive are the ones who wield the power.

And “they…,” “the ones…,” would be the anti-Americans…, the liberals…, the democrats.

 

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.

 

Politics will never be the same, thanks to President Trump.

President Donald Trump has shattered the mold as to how conservatives interact with the American people, the opposition, and the media.

abt 10

You may argue that “the opposition” and “the media” are one in the same thing, and I would have to grant you that…, but for the sake of this article, and its intentions, I am choosing to address them as separate entities.

I contend that due to President Trump’s complete overhauling of the way politicians, especially the president, communicate with the American people, the opposition, and the media, we should properly identify the year based on the event of President Trump’s presidential campaign and election.

President Trump showed all of the conservatives that it was OK to take a conservative stand, and not apologize for it.

aspring 9

President Trump showed all of the conservatives that it was OK to stand up to the fake news media and call them out for what they are.

averitas 2

Therefore, I am proposing that the year President Trump was elected (2016) be designated as “Year Zero.”

“Year Zero” will stand out as a miraculous year.  This is the year that Donald Trump won the presidency of the United States, despite the democrats, of course, being against him, most republicans being against him, most of the media being against him, and many countries around the world contributing millions and millions of dollars to defeat him on Hillary Clinton’s behalf.

abt 7

abt 8

abt 6

abt 5

abt 1

abt 2

abt 3

“Year Zero” was the year that average Americans stood up and said, “We’re taking a stand for ourselves and our country, and we’re not taking this same old political crap anymore!”

“Year Zero” was the first year in a long, long, time, that our president worked solely on behalf of the American people.

“Year Zero” was the first year in a long, long, time, that our president wasn’t beholden to anybody or any special interest groups, other than the American people.

“Year Zero” was the first year in a long, long, time, that our president wasn’t put our country’s concerns and the American peoples’ concerns first.

“Year Zero” was the first year in a long, long, time, that our president began to take our government back from the unelected and unaccountable, treasonous, deep state…, otherwise known as “the swamp.”

“Year Zero” should be remembered just like we remember 1776!

The years before President Trump was elected should be designated as “BT,” or “Before Trump.”

The years after President Trump was elected should be designated as “AT,” or “After Trump.”

“BT” would act as “BC” does now and “AT” would act as “AD” does now.

Soooo, 2015 would now be 1 BT, 2014 would 2 BT, etc.

2017 would be 1 AT and 2018 would be 2 AT, etc.

Using the Trump year designators would allow to put things in the proper political perspective.

For example:

The ObamaCare law went into effect 6 BT.

9/11 occurred in the year 15 BT.

We are currently in the year 3 AT.

President Trump will be re-elected in the year 4 AT.

Either Mike Pence or Ivanka Trump will be elected our 46th president in the year 8 AT.

And so on.

Let me know what you think about the idea!

Perhaps we can promote some grassroots support and make the Trump year designators a reality!

 

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.

 

ABC News and the Jeffrey Epstein case…, just another example of “the fake news media” tailoring what “news” they want you to hear…, or to not hear! 

In this recent case, we have learned that ABC News quashed a story about Jeffrey “Mr. Pedophile” Epstein and his perverted partners in crime, Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton and “Britain’s finest,” Prince Andrew, the Duke of York.

aep 4

Appearing in supporting roles were George Stephanopoulos (former White House Communications Director and Senior advisor to the president under Bill Clinton, and now chief anchor and political correspondent on ABC) and Alan Dershowitz (a prominent lawyer who was on the defense teams for O.J. Simpson, Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein).

aep 8

aep 9

You obviously lean towards those with quite a high “sleaze factor” when selecting your clients, don’t you, Mr. Dershowitz?!

According to Brian Flood of Fox News, “ABC News anchor Amy Robach was caught on a hot mic claiming ‘network honchos’ killed a story that would have exposed claims that now-deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein forced an alleged victim to have sex with Prince Andrew.”

aep 6

“Network honchos,” huh?

More like “network puppets/tools.”

Don’t these “people” and their enablers just make you sick?

I know they make me sick.

On a side note…, whatever happened to that #METOO movement?

I guess women’s rights only go so far.

Anyway…, “Robach filmed an interview with Prince Andrew accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre in 2015 that never aired, and she vented about ABC killing the story during a ‘moment of frustration’ that was published Tuesday by Project Veritas.”

aep 7

Note: For more information on “Project Veritas,” please refer to my blog from October 31, 2019, “CNN exposed as propaganda arm for the democrats!”

“ABC News president James Goldston recently dined with members of the royal family, including Prince Charles, according to Page Six. In the leaked footage, Robach complained that ABC would not air her sit down with Giuffre – who has claimed Epstein paid her to have sex with Prince Andrew, although the prince denies the allegations.”

‘“The Palace [Buckingham Palace] found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways,’ said ABC News anchor Amy Robach.”

“Giuffre told NPR in August that she ‘viewed the ABC interview as a potential game-changer’ and said the network never explained why it didn’t air.  ABC News has said it didn’t meet its standards.”

“Didn’t meet its standards?!”

Oh…, now all of a sudden they have “standards?!”

Where were these journalistic “standards” when they reported on wild and unsubstantiated Russian collusion nonsense on a nightly basis?

Where were these journalistic “standards” when they reported on wild unsubstantiated claims regarding Judge Brett Kavanaugh?

The list could go on.

The point is, in the world of the fake news media, “journalistic standards” means the proper application of the liberal propaganda of the day.

aep 10

And what about the rest of the fake news media and this story?

“Fox News found no coverage on CNN, MSNBC, CBS News, or NBC News from noon through midnight ET on Tuesday while the story was lighting up social media. During that same time frame, Fox News covered the scandal on five different programs, including its entire primetime lineup.”

‘“That there has been so little coverage about ABC avoiding the Epstein story demonstrates again that mainstream media too often make news judgment based on sociocultural or political implications rather than journalistic values,’” DePauw University professor and media critic Jeffrey McCall told Fox News.”

adebate 9

Like I said…, “Just another example of ‘the fake news media’ tailoring what ‘news’ they want you to hear…, or to not hear!

“During the NBC interview, Giuffre repeated accusations she has made in court papers that when she was 17 in 2001 she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew. A photo released by a New York appeals court in August showed Andrew with his arm around Giuffre’s bare waist.”

aep 3

“Giuffre said it was taken in the apartment of Epstein’s longtime girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, in 2001.”

Please note that if Ghislaine Maxwell isn’t already dead, she will be experiencing an accidental suicide very soon.

Just sayin’.

“Ghislaine woke me up in the morning and said, ‘You’re going to meet a prince today.’ I didn’t know at that point I was going to be trafficked to that prince,’ Giuffre told NBC News three years after her interview with ABC that never aired.”

‘“Ghislaine said [Prince Andrew’s] coming back to the house and I want you do to for him what you do for Epstein,’ Giuffre said in the interview. ‘I couldn’t believe it.’”

“Giuffre said she and Andrew had sex two more times. The encounters happened in Epstein’s New York apartment and at his Virgin Islands estate, she alleges.”

“A Buckingham Palace spokesperson has emphatically denied Giuffre’s allegations against Andrew.”

Of course they did.

Good show!  Bloody good show!

aep 1

aep 2

 

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.

 

This is how President Trump could destroy Joe Biden in a debate in about 5 minutes.

The democrats and the fake news media are accusing President Trump of a “quid pro quo” arrangement with the Ukrainian president, and attempting to impeach him for it.

In case you’re not familiar with it, “quid pro quo” is a Latin term…, “quid” meaning “money,” “pro” meaning “for, and “quo” meaning “something received.”

Let’s fast forward to a potential presidential debate during the fall of 2020.

adebate 3

President Trump is giving his opening statement:

“I’m sure you’re aware, Joe, of what you and your democrat friends tried, and failed, to impeach me for.”

“They tried to imply that I threatened the Ukrainian president, which I didn’t, with a withholding of funds, which we didn’t, if he failed to investigate your possible corruption prior to the 2016 election, which he didn’t do.”

“It’s pretty hard to have a “quid pro quo” arrangement, Joe, when there is no “quid” and there is no “quo.”

“You, Joe, are on tape, however, bragging about doing EXACTLY what you and your friends accused me of doing.”

adebate 5

“You said, and I’ll read your EXACT quote.  You said, ‘I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.’”

“Now THAT, Joe, is a textbook example of the president of The Ukraine being threatened with a “quid pro quo.”

“What you actually DID is what you and your friends, and the fake news media, tried to hang on me.”

adebate 2

“You not only admitted it in your own words, but you bragged about it!  And all of your friends there in the fake news media laughed about it!”

“None of your democrat friends or the fake news media seemed to have any problems with what you DID, but they spent the last 6 months fighting to breathe life into the hoax that I did what you actually did.”

“And you and your democrat friends will not admit that the fake news, mainstream media, is an arm of the democrat party used for liberal propaganda, when it is quite obvious they are.”

“In my opinion, we can bypass any investigation involving you and Ukraine and proceed right to the sentencing phase.  You obviously broke multiple laws and you publicly confessed to breaking those laws.”

“Secondly, we have the events surrounding your son, Hunter, Joe.”

adebate 4

“Here we have a young man who flies into China with you on Air Force Two, and somehow flies home with millions of dollars in his investment fund.  Then he ends up being put on the board of a Ukrainian gas company and gets paid over $50 thousand a month.  Both of these countries being places where you have quite a bit of influence, being The Vice President of The United States.  But you claim to have no knowledge of any of his activities.”

adebate 8

“I’m not even going to argue the legality or the appropriateness of any of that right now, Joe.”

“But I am going to ask the American people to please stop and consider what I’m about to say.”

“Suppose my sons, Eric or Don Jr., or my daughters, Ivanka or Tiffany, were involved in some sweetheart deals like your son, Hunter?”

adebate 6

“What do you think your democrat friends or the fake news media would have to say about that?”

“I think they all would have lost their minds and would have launched endless investigations into my children and I.”

“Seriously, it would have been an absolute circus.”

“Can anybody even argue that assumption?”

adebate 7

“Now I ask the American people, why does the fake news media choose to look the other way in Hunter Biden’s, your son’s case, Joe, but you know darn well they would absolutely crucify my children and I?”

“It’s not just a bias, Joe…, it’s a concerted effort to misinform and manipulate the American people.”

adebate 9

“It’s like I said before, you and your democrat friends will not admit that the fake news, mainstream media, is an arm of the democrat party used for liberal propaganda, when it is quite obvious they are.”

“I am appealing to the American people to recognize what has been going on here with the fake news media.  Hold them accountable, and demand that they report the news fairly and honestly on your behalf and in your interests…, not the best interest of just one party…, the democrat party.”

And that is how President Trump destroys Joe Biden, the democrat party, and the liberal propaganda, fake news media within 5 minutes of their first debate.

And you don’t have to take my word for what Vice President Biden said at the time…, you can watch the actual video of Biden bragging about his “quid pro quo” below.  Put your cursor on the link, press the “Ctrl” key and click with your mouse.

https://youtu.be/Q0_AqpdwqK4

Hey…, the democrats are the ones who decided to open up this can of worms…, and these worms ain’t going back in the can!

Remember democrats, be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.

WINNING!

 

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.

Another case of CNN spreading its liberal propaganda: regarding the democrats’ letter to The Ukraine.

Daniel Dale’s article for CNN is titled, “Fact check: Trump falsely claims Democrats’ letter made threat to Ukraine.”

First of all, the whole premise of this article is wrought with bias and inaccuracies.

His article is not a “fact check,” it is an opinion piece, and a biased opinion piece at that.

Dale claims, “We fact checked Trump’s claims about Biden and Ukraine here.”

This statement is either a lie, or they are admitting they looked into Biden and Ukraine and they are just ignoring Biden’s illegal activity there.

demletter 6

Let me conduct my own “fact check” for a minute here.

Joe Biden is on video proudly admitting he threatened the Ukrainian government!

ON VIDEO!

Joe Biden lied about his communications with his son about his son’s “sweetheart” deal with a Ukrainian gas company.  Joe Biden said he “never” discussed this with his son, although his son has said they did.

demletter 5

A picture with Joe Biden, his son, and executives from the Ukrainian gas company has surfaced.

demletter 4

A PICTURE!

But even after all of this, CNN chooses to pursue President Trump for possibly doing what Joe Biden has already been proven to have done.

All you can do is shake your head.

The “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” is not even concerned how slanted and unfair it looks anymore.

These media outlets are just simply co-conspirators in perpetrating these endless hoaxes on the American people in an attempt to take down President Trump.

Dale immediately proclaims the letter from the democrat senators is, “a request, not a threat.”

Dale’s article does not even provide the letter for us to read on our own and make our own determination…, but I will.

demletter 1

 

Dale claims, “The 2018 letter from Sens. Patrick Leahy, Dick Durbin and Bob Menendez did not include any threat at all, about US assistance to Ukraine or anything else; it did not even mention US assistance.”

How else would Mr. Lutsenko “take” this letter, if not as a threat?

What are three US senators doing writing him an official letter anyway?

Has a US Attorney General ever received a letter from members of a foreign government suggesting what they should do?

Just sayin’.

Nowhere in The Constitution does it say that Senators are to communicate with foreign governments regarding investigations of any kind. In this case, the now debunked Mueller investigation.

These senators are most obviously operating outside of their constitutionally dictated areas of responsibility.

“The Senators’ letter was written in response to a New York Times report that the Ukrainian Prosecutor General was considering not cooperating with the Mueller Probe out of concern that President Trump would cut off aid as punishment.”

Ha! And we all know that New York Times articles are always accurate!

demletter 7

Please see my numerous blogs on The New York Times commenting on the contrary.

The democrats have a bad habit of justifying their actions based on articles in The New York Times…, that they have planted there themselves!

Like I said, “These media outlets are just simply co-conspirators in perpetrating these endless hoaxes on the American people in an attempt to take down President Trump.”

The senators wrote, “If these reports are true, we strongly encourage you to reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

What would you understand the words “we strongly encourage you” to mean?

Again…, how else would Mr. Lutsenko “take” this letter, if not as some sort of threat?

Perhaps we should contact Mr. Lutsenko and ask him how he took the letter?

The only reason we wouldn’t hear about Mr. Lutsenko’s feelings is if they failed to go along with the narrative being pushed by the democrats and the fake news media.

WINNING!

demletter 8

 

 

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.

 

Hey Kemosabe…, “jump on it, jump on it!” Elizabeth Warren is a fraudulent Native American!

Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren has now become the democrats’ presidential front runner it would appear.

fraud 6

To celebrate her new standing in the polls, I think she deserves a little attention from MrEricksonRules!

First…, let’s quickly review Elizabeth Warren’s fraudulent Native American racial claims.

In April 1986, Warren listed herself as “Native American” on a Texas state bar registration form.

fraud 4

Warren also identified herself as “Native American” at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she worked from 1987 to 1995.

fraud 7

Harvard Law School, where Warren taught before entering politics, referred to Warren as “the school’s only Native American professor” as recently as 1996.  Harvard then identified Warren as “Native American” on federal affirmative action forms every year until 2004.

fraud 5

I wonder if Harvard managed to avoid any tax penalties based on Warren’s designation?

Warren also listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools directory from 1986 to 1994.

Could you even imagine the outrage by “the media” if a similar discovery were made about President Trump?

There would be non-stop protests, a special prosecutor, Congressional hearings, more talk of impeachment, yada, yada, yada.

Am I wrong?

As it stands, the “mainstream media” has basically given Warren a pass on this, as have most of the other democrats.

fraud 8

Google, of course, is doing its part as well.

When we “Google” “Elizabeth Warren’s Native American claims” we get these top 10 results:

 

“Elizabeth Warren Apologizes at Native American Forum: ‘I …”

https://www.nytimes.com › 2019/08/19 › us › politics › elizabeth-warren-nat…

 

“Inside Elizabeth Warren’s courtship of Native American leaders”

https://www.cnn.com › 2019/08/18 › politics › elizabeth-warren-native-amer…

 

“Elizabeth Warren confronts handling of Native American … – Vox”

https://www.vox.com › policy-and-politics › elizabeth-warren-native-ameri…

 

“Warren Apologizes at Native American Forum – The Wall …”

https://www.wsj.com › Politics › Election 2020

 

“Elizabeth Warren apologizes over Native American heritage …”

https://www.latimes.com › politics › story › elizabeth-warren-native-americ…

 

“Sen. Elizabeth Warren at Native American forum: ‘I am sorry …”

https://abcnews.go.com › Politics › story

 

“Warren apologizes for heritage claim, woos Native Americans”

https://www.apnews.com › …

 

“Democratic hopeful Warren apologizes for Native American …”

https://www.reuters.com › article › us-usa-election-warren › democratic-ho…

 

“Elizabeth Warren releases plan aimed at uplifting Native …”

https://www.usatoday.com › story › news › politics › elections › 2019/08/16

 

Boy…, nothing really too critical of Warren there…, mostly apologetic and in the best light possible.  None of the sources would be considered “conservative” either.

Quite different from the search results that would show up for President Trump, I imagine.

Some of the keywords that would show up in a search like that, if it were President Trump, would be:

“LIAR,”

“RACIST,”

“FRAUD,”

“PHONY,”

“IMPOSTER,”

“CHEATER,”

“CON ARTIST,”

…, just for starters.

Am I wrong?

Recently, according to The Daily Caller, Warren said, “I am sorry for harm I have caused.  I have listened and I have learned a lot, and I am grateful for the many conversations that we’ve had together.”

Oh…, well, alrighty then!  Say no more, Elizabeth!  Your sins have been officially absolved by the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media!”

Bishop Zubik hears young woman's confession at pro-life youth rally and Mass in Washington

This absolution is, of course, reserved for liberals…, especially white, privileged, establishment, liberals. Being a woman on top of it all doesn’t hurt either.

fraud 9

Black, Hispanic, and especially Native American liberals do not normally receive this level of consideration.

As they say…, “you could look it up.”

fraud 14

fraud 13

fraud 12

fraud 11

fraud 10

fraud 3

 

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.

 

 

Who are these “reporters” trying to kid with their “liberal spin?”

These libs just never miss an opportunity to try and change history in their favor.

In this case, in the favor of anti-American Muslims, Islamic extremists and anti-Americans in general.

Oh yeah.  Don’t think for one minute that this was an honest mistake or a poor choice of words.

This was an intentionally, deceitfully, crafted attempt to rewrite history.

So what exactly are we talking about here?

Brian Flood of Fox News reports that, “The New York Times caused an uproar on Wednesday with a now-deleted tweet and now-updated story that originally said ‘airplanes’ were responsible for the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001.

fakenyt 7

‘“18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center. Today, families will once again gather and grieve at the site where more than 2000 people died,’ the Times’ verified Twitter account wrote in a message accompanying a story about 9/11 victims being remembered at Ground Zero.”

Those damn airplanes!

They should all be banned!

“The 9/11 anniversary message was immediately met with harsh criticism and was swiftly deleted.”

‘“We’ve deleted an earlier tweet to this story and have edited for clarity. The story has also been updated,’ the Times tweeted.”

“Edited for clarity,” huh?

fakenyt 6

The author of the tweet wouldn’t happen to be a friend or relative of Rep. Ilhan Omar, would they? Or how about a friend or associate of Barack (“Obama Bin Lying”) Obama?

fakenyt 8

“The updated tweet to promote the story said, ‘18 years after nearly 3,000 people were lost, families of those killed in the terror attacks will gather at the 9/11 memorial. There will be a moment of silence at 8:46 a.m., then the names of the dead — one by one — will be recited.’”

“The story, by James Barron, was also changed to note that “terrorists commandeered” the airplanes that brought down the World Trade Center.”

This “reporter/tweeter,” must have watched too much of “Thomas the Tank Engine,” Disney’s “Cars,” or Disney’s “Planes!”  Planes, trains and automobiles do not act on their own volition.  A person or persons are responsible for the operation of them.

fakenyt 1

fakenyt 2

Also, the 2,977 people killed in New York, at the Pentagon and in a field in rural Pennsylvania is considerably closer to 3,000 than 2,000.

Like 977 people closer.

Idiot.

Not only did the New York Times try to take the terrorists off the hook, they tried to downplay and diminish the number of people who lost their lives because of these Islamic extremists.

fakenyt 3

“The New York Times did not immediately respond to a request for comment.”

And they probably won’t respond.

‘“The @NYT says airplanes caused 9/11. Wrong. It was Muslim terrorists who waged jihad on American soil and killed thousands of our fellow countrymen in the name of their religion,’ Fox News’ Todd Starnes wrote, while Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee noted that the paper doesn’t seem to ‘have much grasp on recent history.’”

Oh, it does…, it just doesn’t like the actual history to be promoted.

‘“Twin Towers NOT brought down because “airplanes took aim” at them, but b/c radical Islamists hijacked planes & took aim at them,’ Huckabee added.”

“Many users compared the rhetoric in the Times tweet to an infamous remark made by Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., earlier this year when she said ‘some people did something’ when describing the 9/11 attacks.”

I can only hope Ms. Omar becomes a bit of history as a result of the 2020 elections.

“He always says that those who control the present can rewrite the past.” ― Anne Fortier, The Lost Sisterhood

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” ― George Orwell

 

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.

 

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑