“Damn the Torpedoes!” …, and “Damn the Truth!” …, “Damn the Facts!” while you’re at it!

The “biased, liberal, fake news media,” along with the other typical cast of confused liberal characters, not only got this whole story wrong…, AGAIN…, but then spent hours and hours castigating and crucifying these poor Catholic school kids, while promoting their own racist narrative.

According to Robby Soave via Reason.com, “‘Journalists’ who uncritically accepted Nathan Phillips’ story got this completely wrong…”

“Partial video footage of students from a Catholic high school (the key word here being ‘partial’) allegedly harassing a Native American veteran after the anti-abortion March for Life rally in Washington, D.C., [on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial] on Saturday quickly went viral, provoking widespread condemnation of the kids on social media. Various media figures and Twitter users called for them to be doxed, shamed, or otherwise punished, and school administrators said they would consider expulsion.”

BUT…, the rest of the video, over two hours of additional footage, shows what happened before and after the incident, and adds important context that strongly contradicts the media’s racist, anti-white, anti-Catholic, narrative.

The full video clearly shows that Nathan Phillips, an Omaha tribal elder, approached the students and was the one who taunted them and not the other way around.

Robby Soave continues by saying, “Far from engaging in racially motivated harassment, the group of mostly white, MAGA-hat-wearing male teenagers remained relatively calm and restrained despite being subjected to incessant racist, homophobic, and bigoted verbal abuse by members of the bizarre religious sect Black Hebrew Israelites (BHI), who were lurking nearby. [The BHI called the school kids ‘crackers,’ ‘faggots,’ and ‘pedophiles.’ They also called one of the black students the ‘n-word’ and then told him that his friends are going to ‘murder him and steal his organs.’ Throughout the video they threaten the kids with violence, and attempt to goad them into attacking first. The students resisted these taunts admirably: They laughed at the hecklers, and they perform a few of their school’s sports cheers.]”

“The BHI has existed since the late 19th century, and is best described as a ‘black nationalist’ cult movement; its members believe they are descendants of the ancient Israelites, and often express condemnation of white people, Christians, and gays. DC-area Black Hebrews are known to spout particularly vile bigotry.”

The “biased, liberal, fake news media” of course relates more with the BHI as opposed to Catholic high school students. Go figure!

“Phillips put himself between the teens and the black nationalists, chanting and drumming as he marched straight into the middle of the group of young people. [At this point, one of the Native Americans with Phillips shouts: ‘White people, go back to Europe. This is not your land,’ and he curses the students with ‘f-bombs.’] What followed was several minutes of confusion: The teens couldn’t quite decide whether Phillips was on their side or not, but tentatively joined in his chanting. It’s not at all clear this was intended as an act of mockery rather than solidarity.”

Organizers of the March for Life, the annual antiabortion event that had drawn the teenagers to the nation’s capital, initially called the students’ behavior “reprehensible,” but, in a revised statement, said, “It is clear from new footage and additional accounts that there is more to this story than the original video captured.”

Wow. Was there no one here that didn’t jump to conclusions?

Doesn’t that always seem to be the case? Isn’t it the responsibility of “the media” to make sure that what they are seeing or what they are told is the whole story? It seems that our current crop of “journalists” just expect stories to be “spoon fed” to them and they just run with them “sight unseen.”

The students’ congressman, Representative Thomas Massie, a republican from Kentucky, praised the students, tweeting that “in the face of racist and homosexual slurs, the young boys refused to reciprocate or disrespect anyone.”

Mr. Soave also feels, “The boys are undoubtedly owed an apology from the numerous people who joined this social media pile-on. This is shaping up to be one of the biggest major media misfires in quite some time.”

Oh…, you mean since way back to the “BuzzFeed” article? All the way back to last week? Is that the “in quite some time” you’re referring to?

And even CNN’s Jake Tapper admitted the [biased, liberal, fake news] media’s error:

“.@reason: “Video footage strongly contradicts Native American veteran Nathan Phillips’ claim that Covington Catholic High School boys harassed him. The media got this one completely wrong,” writes @robbysoave https://t.co/9Ki4iiTkQ9

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 20, 2019”

Of course, we haven’t seen any of the same “reporters” on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC spend any time “on air” apologizing for their foolishness and apologizing for jumping to their own racist conclusions.

Some of the students from Covington Catholic High School were also attacked by the “biased, liberal, fake news media” for wearing their red “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) hats.

These kids are from Kentucky. If you were one of them and making a trip to Washington D.C., and you were a fan of our president, where would be a better place to wear your MAGA hat and show your support than while you were out in the nation’s capital?

Isaac Stanley-Becker, writing for the Washington Post says, “At first, politicians ‘sounded the alarm.’ Celebrities professed outrage. School officials joined the Catholic Diocese of Covington in apologizing for the students, who were threatened as their private information poured out online.”

Excuse me…, again, but the “biased, liberal, fake news media” are truly a bunch of “biased, liberal, fake news,” race baiting idiots.

Of course, by virtue of the MAGA hats, President Trump was dragged into the whole fake “disgustingly racial” issue.

The President blamed the media, and rightfully so, for the fallout, which he said was responsible for “early judgements proving out to be false.”

He responded by tweeting:

“Nick Sandmann and the students of Covington have become symbols of Fake News and how evil it can be. They have captivated the attention of the world, and I know they will use it for the good – maybe even to bring people together. It started off unpleasant, but can end in a dream!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 22, 2019”

Actress, a leading voice in the #MeToo movement, an outspoken critic of Mr. Trump, and self-proclaimed liberal activist, Alyssa Milano, whose opinion matters why? Tweeted:

“The red MAGA hat is the new white hood. (Obviously jumping off the deep end and equating Red MAGA hats to Ku Klux Klan hoods.)

Without white boys being able to empathize with other people, humanity will continue to destroy itself. #FirstThoughtsWhenIWakeUp

— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) January 20, 2019”

Well, miss “#FirstThoughtsWhenIWakeUp,” MAYBE YOU SHOULD WAKE UP first before spewing your racist ignorance all over the internet!

Perhaps, Alyssa, you and your liberal friends should start wearing YOUR new MAGA equivalent hats…, DUNCE HATS!

The same media figures and Twitter users who called for the Covington students be “doxed, shamed, or otherwise punished,” should themselves be “doxed, shamed, or otherwise punished.”

Hey…, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

That is correct (I’m answering myself here), everywhere EXCEPT in the “biased, Liberal, fake news” world, where there is an extreme double standard, and a level of hypocrisy which knows no bounds and knows no shame.

Remember, stay thirsty (for the truth) my friends, and don’t drink the liberal Kool Aide!

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 23, 2019 0

This CNN analyst’s level of confusion is quite impressive!

CNN legal “analyst,” Areva Martin, called out a Fox News contributor for his “white privilege” while talking to him recently on his SiriusXM radio show.

The only problem with that is he’s a black man!

David Webb, a radio host on SiriusXM and a frequent Fox News contributor, is black.

When Webb, who is a Fox Nation host and frequent Fox News contributor, said he considered his qualifications more important than his skin color when applying to media jobs, Ms. Martin (who is a black woman) accused him of exercising white privilege.

“Areva, I hate to break it to you, but you should’ve been better prepped,” he responded. “I’m black.”

In the actual interview, David Webb says, “I’ve chosen to cross different parts of the media world, done the work so that I’m qualified to be in each one; I never considered my color the issue; I considered my qualifications the issue.”

Areva Martin then responds: “Well, David, that’s a whole other long conversation about white privilege, the things that you have the privilege of doing, that people of color don’t have the privilege of.”

“How do I have the privilege of white privilege?” Webb asks.

“David, by virtue of being a white male you have white privilege. This whole long conversation, I don’t have time to get into …”

Webb then interrupts her to let her know he’s a black man, causing Martin to take a pause.

“You see, you went to white privilege; this is the falsehood in this,” Webb replies. “You went immediately with an assumption. Your people, obviously, or you didn’t look.”

Ms. Martin the proceeds to apologize repeatedly for her false accusation, adding that “her people” gave her the wrong information.

So Ms. Martin is saying that she just blindly regurgitates whatever “her people” feed her?

Is this what we are referring to when we talk about “talking heads?”

Ms. Martin should be woman enough to accept the criticism here and not throw “her people” “under the bus,” but in typical liberal fashion, nothing is ever her fault it’s always the fault of someone else.

“You’re talking to a black man . . . who started out in rock radio in Boston, who crossed the paths into hip-hop, rebuilding one of the greatest black stations in America and went on to work at Fox News where I’m told apparently blacks aren’t supposed to work, but yet, you come with this assumption, and you go to white privilege,” Webb says. “That’s actually insulting.”

According to Michael Brice-Saddler for the Washington Post, “Martin has not publicly acknowledged the incident, and a spokeswoman for Areva Martin declined to comment.”

“After the interview, Webb made light of Martin’s gaffe by posting photos of himself with white men, writing on Twitter: ‘Just two guys showing their #WhitePrivelege.’ pic.twitter.com/mXWv47dTTX

— David Webb (@davidwebbshow) January 15, 2019”

Brice-Saddler continues by saying, “The exchange became a popular topic on Fox News, where Tucker Carlson discussed it Tuesday night, shortly before Webb appeared on “The Ingraham Angle.” The following morning, he was back on Fox to discuss the incident with “Fox and Friends,” telling the hosts that white privilege is a “false narrative.”

“‘There is no such thing as white privilege,’ Webb said. ‘There’s earned privilege in life that you work for. There are those who may have a form of privilege that they exert . . . in the form of influence.’”

“If a conservative analyst had made the same mistake as Martin, there would be calls for that person to be fired, Webb said.”

“He said he has invited Martin back to his show to ‘have a longer conversation about white privilege.’”

“‘Our skin’s an organ, it doesn’t think or formulate ideas, it just says: This is a result of your parentage,’ he said.”

“‘She got caught,’ he said of Martin, but added: ‘I have no reason to “diss” her.’”

You may not want to “diss” her Mr. Webb, but I will!

For your information Ms. Areva Martin, racism can cut both ways. Just because you are black and/or a liberal does not mean you get a free pass to say ignorant things or racist things and get away with them. I know you’re used to getting away with stuff like this on CNN or MSNBC, but you better be prepared and on your game when talking to conservative talk show hosts or when appearing on Fox News.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 17, 2019 0

“Dan Rather and the birth of fake news?” No, “Dan Rather and the ‘biased, liberal, fake news media’ finally got exposed!”

I’m referring to a new documentary on Fox Nation, which is Fox News Channel’s new subscription-based, on-demand streaming service.

Some of you might be asking, “Who the heck is Dan Rather?” Well, in case you’re not familiar with him, Dan Rather began his career in Texas and was on the scene of the Kennedy assassination in Dallas in 1963. His reporting elevated his position in CBS News, where he was The White House correspondent beginning in 1964. He served as foreign correspondent in London and Vietnam over the next two years before returning to The White House correspondent position, covering the Nixon presidency, including the trip to China, Watergate scandal and his ultimate resignation.

When Walter Cronkite (“America’s newsman”) retired in 1981, Rather was promoted to news anchor for the CBS Evening News, a role he then occupied for 24 years. Rather was one of the “Big Three” nightly news anchors in the U.S. from the 1980s through the early 2000s.

Okay, so now let’s get back to the story.

According to Art Moore of WND.com (World Net Daily), “Long before ‘fake news’ became an issue on Capitol Hill, a news story that threatened to derail George W. Bush’s re-election was debunked by bloggers, launching a new era of citizen journalism challenging the establishment-media gatekeepers.”

The report from September of 2004 that led to Dan Rather’s resignation as the anchor of CBS News is the focus of a new documentary, “Black Eye: Dan Rather and the Birth of Fake News.”

In the case being highlighted here, Mr. Rather and his team presented memos, supposedly from 1973, indicating George W. Bush had received special treatment during his time in the Texas Air National Guard that prevented him from be deployed in Vietnam.

“But bloggers who examined the documents posted on the CBS News website found they had been produced by a Microsoft Word processor that didn’t exist in 1973,” added Art Moore of WND.com.

CBS initially defended the documents, but after two weeks of further scrutiny concluded their authenticity could not be proved and called its reporting a “mistake.”

The network fired producer Mary Mapes, and a little more than two months later Dan Rather resigned.

The good guys 1, fake news 0.

CBS later commissioned an “independent panel” that found “serious defects in the reporting and production” of the Sept. 8, 2004, segment on “60 Minutes Wednesday.”

Let’s get a few things clear here:

One, there was no real “independent panel.”

And two, there were no “serious defects in the reporting and production.” The story that was produced and reported on was done so intentionally to discredit George W. Bush.

Just like the hundreds and hundreds of “fake news” stories that have been manufactured and passed on to us as “news” since then all the way up till now.

In a 2006 radio interview, however, Mr. Rather defended his reporting and rejected the CBS panel’s findings.

No kidding.

The network stood by the “panel’s findings.”

No one man is bigger than “the swamp” itself.

The following year, Rather filed a lawsuit against CBS and its former corporate parent, Viacom, claiming he had been made a “scapegoat.” The suit was dismissed in 2009 by the New York State Appeals Court.

Dan Rather, who is now 86, has not commented on the new the documentary…, yet.

He did recently Tweet, however, “It‘s like we’re living through a bad parody of reality television,” he wrote. “But at least when that kind of stuff is on TV you know it isn’t really real and you can chose not to watch.”

Thanks for your input Dan. We can totally relate. It’s just like you were a “bad parody” of an unbiased news anchor.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 16, 2019 0

Well, I guess we can add Senator Ted Kennedy to the list of treasonous liberals!

Watching “Life, Liberty and Levin” the other night, a TV show hosted by (The Great One) Mark Levin, I was floored by a letter his guest, Paul Kengor, discussed.

Paul Kengor is a political science professor at Grove City College, and the author of the book, “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism,” among others.

According to Sheila Fitzpatrick of the Wiley Online Library, “The opening of formerly closed and classified archives following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was a remarkable experience for historians…, our data base abruptly expanded in a quantum leap…”

This is how a KGB letter, dated May 14, 1983, written at the height of the Cold War, from the head of the KGB Viktor Chebrikov to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party, came to light.

Here is the translated letter:

Special Importance Committee on State Security of the USSR

14.05.1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV Moscow

Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party, Comrade Y.V. Andropov

Comrade Y.V. Andropov,

On 9-10 of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The Senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe. According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the “success of Reaganomics.”

Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.

The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the Senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.

The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistance to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.

However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandstand, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals. Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:

Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues. If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit. Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V. Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and published a book on the theme as well.)
Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.

If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The Senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.

Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military terms. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration. Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutual understandings between peoples.

The Senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.

Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the Senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future).

Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.

We await instructions.

President of the committee,

Viktor Chebrikov

Well what do you think about that?

Again…, can you imagine a letter like this being unearthed that implicated a Republican, and the blood bath that would ensue?

It’s so obvious that the “biased, liberal, fake news media” has been “running interference” for democrats for the last 60+ years now, and it continues today.

It sure sounds to me like Senator Kennedy wants to conspire with the Russian leader against the President of the United States at the time, Ronald Reagan.

I don’t know how you call this anything less than treason.

Kevin Mooney, a staff writer for Crosswalk.com at the time, seems to agree with me. In October of 2006, he wrote, “A KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan’s foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.”

In his letter, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov offered the USSR General Secretary Yuri Andropov his interpretation of Kennedy’s offer. Former U.S. Senator John Tunney, a democrat from California, and Kennedy’s law school roommate at the University of Virginia, had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov and other Soviet officials, Professor Kengor claimed in his book.

At one point after President Reagan left office, Tunney acknowledged that he had played the role of intermediary. Tunney later told the London Times that he had made 15 separate trips to Moscow!

Kennedy’s attempt to partner with high-level Soviet officials never materialized, at least as far as we know. Yuri Andropov died less than eight months receiving the letter about Kennedy from his KGB head, and it is not clear if the Soviet Communist Party chief ever acted on the Democrat senator’s proposal. Andropov was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev.

“There’s a lot more to be found here,” Professor Kengor told Cybercast News Service. “This was a shocking revelation.”

Kevin Mooney, later an author at “The Daily Signal,” wrote in 2016, “Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy had “selfish political and ideological motives” when he made secret overtures to the Soviet Union’s spy agency during the Cold War to thwart then-President Ronald Reagan’s re-election…”

“In the 1980s, Kennedy was ‘terribly misguided’ and ‘a fool’ for seeing Reagan as a greater threat than either the leader of the Soviet Union or the head of its brutal secret police and intelligence agency,” political science professor and writer Paul Kengor told The Daily Signal. “But what is clear from history is that Russian agents have worked with “dupes” such as Kennedy and other “naïve” Americans to influence U.S. policy to serve their own ends.”

So, what is the point of this article?

Here’s the point:

President Trump has been under a daily attack, for the better part of two years, from the “biased, liberal, fake news media” regarding some uncorroborated claims of collusion between President Trump and Russia.

In the case of Senator Kennedy, we have an actual letter describing his desires to conspire with a foreign government, and the “biased, liberal, fake news media” chose to, and chooses to, look the other way.

That’s the point.

Whose side are these guys on anyway?

Whoever’s side it is, it’s not “We the People’s” side, that’s for sure.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 15, 2019 0

For all of those liberals living in denial…, well here you go, straight from the horse’s…, uh, I mean the editor’s mouth!

Jill Abramson, a veteran journalist in her own right, and the former executive editor at The New York Times newspaper from 2011 to 2014, says “The Times” has a financial incentive to bash the president and that the imbalance is helping to erode its credibility. She added that, the paper’s “news” pages have become “unmistakably anti-Trump.”

Please go on Ms. Abramson, but tell us something we don’t already know.

Being the executive editor for four years during President Obama’s tenure was obviously a pretty boring time at “The Times.” The “biased, liberal, fake news media” wasn’t interested in any hard hitting investigative “journalism” concerning President Obama or his administration. There were no daily attacks of President Obama, the first lady, or his family. There was only properly spun propaganda or propaganda by omission.

I’m sure “The Times,” version 2017-2018, looks and sounds quite different today compared to the paper she left four years ago.

I do wonder, however, what she is referring to when she says “The Times has a financial incentive to bash the president….” What “financial incentive” exactly do they receive for bashing the president, and from whom?

This definitely does not sound like something a “fair and balanced” news source would practice. Does it? Fair minded people of course would say “no,” but how do my liberal friends respond to this? I’m just wondering, and I hope they give me some feedback.

I can’t see any possible justification for this behavior unless you’re okay with a major media outlet being a propaganda tool for any ideology or political party, while claiming to be objective.

According to Howard Kurtz, of Fox News, for Media Buzz, “In a soon-to-be published book, ‘Merchants of Truth,’ that casts a skeptical eye on the news business, Abramson defends the Times in some ways but offers some harsh words for her successor, Dean Baquet. And Abramson, who was the paper’s only female executive editor until her firing, invoked Steve Bannon’s slam that in the Trump era the mainstream media have become the “opposition party.”

‘“Though Baquet said publicly he didn’t want the Times to be the opposition party, his news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump,’ Abramson writes, adding that she believes the same is true of the Washington Post. ‘Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis.’”

“Abramson describes a generational split at the Times, with younger staffers, many of them in digital jobs, favoring an unrestrained assault on the presidency. ‘The more “woke” staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards,’ she writes.”

President Trump routinely claims that he “is keeping the failing New York Times in business.” Some would say this is an exaggeration, but the former editor acknowledges a “Trump bump” that saw digital subscriptions during his first six months in office jump by 600,000, to more than 2 million.

I would call that quite significant!

‘“Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative…,’ Abramson added.”

When her boss, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. decided to let her go, he called her in, fired her, and handed her a press release announcing her resignation.

Abramson says she replied, “Arthur, I’ve devoted my entire career to telling the truth, and I won’t agree to this press release. I’m going to say I’ve been fired.”

Just one more attempt at “fake news” I guess!

Of course the rest of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” claim that a result of losing her job she is now being vindictive and making false claims against The New York Times.

It’s funny, but I never hear “the biased, liberal, fake news media” claiming that former Trump appointees or employees are acting in a vindictive manner or making false claims against him.

Just sayin’.

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 14, 2019 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So Mr. Scott, you have been debunked!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

January 3, 2019 0

The KGB…, oops, I mean the FBI is at it again!

Apparently “the swamp” runs pretty deep over at the good ol’ FBI.

Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, and current Chairman of The Senate Judiciary Committee, wants answers about an FBI raid conducted on a “whistleblower,” who apparently had information on Hillary Clinton, The Clinton Foundation and “Uranium One.”

Please refer to my previous blog on January 5, 2018, “Grand Theft Uranium,” “Oh what a tangled, and radioactive, web they weave!” for a little more background on this subject.

“Uranium One” is [was] a Canadian mining company whose sale to a Russian firm was approved in 2010. The U.S. government was involved because the sale gave the Russians control of part [approximately 15%] of the U.S. uranium supply [uranium of course being necessary to produce nuclear energy or nuclear weapons]. The transaction has faced renewed scrutiny after “The Hill” reported last year that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S.

Sen. Grassley has written to FBI Director Christopher Wray and the Justice Department’s internal watchdog (a government “watchdog” is a group or individual within an organization charged with self-policing against illegal or unethical conduct) to request information about the raid on the home of a former FBI contractor, Dennis Cain, who gave the watchdog documents related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to a Russian firm’s subsidiary.

“Whistleblowers” are supposed to be protected because the “whistleblowing” is usually on people or groups that can manipulate them or do them harm. In this case, because of the nature of the case, and those involved, the “whistleblower” was not protected, but in fact it appears targeted and tampered with.

According to “The Daily Caller,” “16 FBI agents raided the Maryland home of Dennis Nathan Cain on Nov. 19 [2018]. Cain’s lawyer, Michael Socarras, told the website that the agent who led the raid accused his client of possessing stolen federal property. In response, Cain reportedly claimed that he was a protected whistleblower under federal law and had been recognized as such by the DOJ watchdog, Michael Horowitz.”

Socarras also claimed that Horowitz had transmitted his information to The House and Senate intelligence committees.

The documents in question allegedly show that federal officials failed to investigate possible criminal activity related to Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, the Russian nuclear company whose subsidiary purchased Uranium One in 2013.

No one will ever see or hear of those documents again, unless Mr. Cain was wise enough to have created duplicates and dispersed them to multiple locations.

In his letter to Wray, Grassley asked on what basis the FBI raided Cain’s home?

Raided on what basis?

It was raided on a big CYA basis! That’s what kind of basis!

It was raided because the FBI wanted to control whatever evidence was there.

He also asked whether the bureau was aware of Cain’s disclosures to Horowitz’s office; whether the bureau considered those disclosures to be protected, and whether agents seized classified information in the raid.

Grassley has given Wray and Horowitz until Dec. 12, 2018 to respond.

Anybody want to bet he ignores that deadline?

Anybody want to bet he ignores the request entirely?

Fox News has previously reported that Douglas Campbell, an FBI informant, involved in the deal, has testified to lawmakers that Moscow paid millions to American lobbying firm “APCO Worldwide” to influence Clinton and the Obama administration.

Wait…, let me get this straight…, “Moscow paid millions to American lobbying firm “APCO Worldwide” to influence Clinton and the Obama administration,” but we are investigating President Trump regarding Russian collusion and Russian influence in our election?

It must be really hard for Robert Mueller to manage an investigation against President Trump, when all he does is trip over evidence against Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration every time he turns around!

“The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over 12 months,” Campbell said in his statement this past February. “APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the US-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.”

APCO has denied Campbell’s claims while Clinton called any claims of wrongdoing related to the Uranium One deal “the same baloney they’ve been peddling for years, and there’s been no credible evidence by anyone.”

“In fact,” Clinton told C-SPAN in October, “it’s been debunked repeatedly and will continue to be debunked.”

Au contraire Mrs. Clinton. Nothing here has been “debunked.” The story has been ignored by the “biased, liberal, fake news media;” you and your friends continue to just deny, deny, deny, but nothing has been “debunked.”

It never hurts to have the FBI on your side either.

Thank you to Samuel Chamberlain of Fox news for contributing to this story.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

December 6, 2018 1

“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.

December 4, 2018 0

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

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

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

But I digress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 29, 2018 1

Liar, liar…, pants on…, fire?

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Democrats oppose any effort to secure our border.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Says North Korea has “agreed to denuclearization.”

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

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

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

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

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

“Democrats are nowhere to be found on DACA.”

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

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

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

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

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

There is “substantial evidence of voter fraud.”

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

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

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

“Hillary Clinton lied many times to the FBI.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I have tremendous support from women.”

(Again, his opinion.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

November 20, 2018 0

Tag: fake news

“Damn the Torpedoes!” …, and “Damn the Truth!” …, “Damn the Facts!” while you’re at it!

This CNN analyst’s level of confusion is quite impressive!

“Dan Rather and the birth of fake news?” No, “Dan Rather and the ‘biased, liberal, fake news media’ finally got exposed!”

Well, I guess we can add Senator Ted Kennedy to the list of treasonous liberals!

For all of those liberals living in denial…, well here you go, straight from the horse’s…, uh, I mean the editor’s mouth!

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

The KGB…, oops, I mean the FBI is at it again!

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

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

Liar, liar…, pants on…, fire?

Subscribe to Blog via Email