“Certified” Election Results?!

I keep hearing democrats crying about “election deniers,” and how the 2020 election results have been “certified,” yada, yada, yada.

“Certified” by who?

“Certified” by the same corrupt partisan officials who conducted the election in their respective cities and states, and then rubber stamped by other partisan politicians and partisan judges?   

According to Lisa Marshall, for the CU (Colorado University) Boulder Today, news publication, “In the days following the 2020 presidential election, as states re-counted and certified votes and President Joe Biden’s win became more objectively certain, Republicans, paradoxically, became less confident in the legitimacy of the vote, according to new CU Boulder research published today in the journal PLOS ONE.”

Note: PLOS ONE is a peer-reviewed open access mega journal published by the Public Library of Science since 2006. The journal covers primary research from any discipline within science and medicine.

“The study also found that, regardless of political party, the more an individual consumed and trusted Fox News, the less faith he or she had in the electoral process.”

Could that be because the mainstream media stuck their heads in the sand and basically failed to report about any election abnormalities at all, while FOX at least addressed some of the issues and concerns?

Could that be why?   

‘“We have never seen this before in the weeks following Election Day: The more evidence accumulated that Biden won, the less confident Republicans became that the election was legitimate,’ said senior author Leaf Van Boven, a professor of psychology and neuroscience who studies judgment and decision making in politics. ‘In a healthy democracy, you would see that moving in the opposite direction, Democrats and Republicans would become more confident in the election’s legitimacy.’”

Yes, that would be nice, but the more we learned about the 2020 election, or better said “installation,” the less confidence we had it its legitimacy.

And, the reason “we have never seen this before in the weeks following Election,” is because we have never seen a presidential election stolen like this before!

“The study comes as some conservative thought leaders have begun to distance themselves from Fox News for giving voice to what they call ‘conspiracy theories,’ and two voting technology companies are suing the network for perpetuating claims the election was rigged.”

Haven’t we arrived at the point now where “conspiracy theories” really aren’t theories anymore?

And anyone can sue anybody for anything. The act of being sued should not be attributable to the questioning of integrity. “The study” makes biased assumptions, connections, and conclusions that are not really valid.     

And who gave the order to stop counting votes in the swing states on the night of November 3/4, 2020 by the way?

Just sayin’.  

“The new research relies on a psychological explanation, known as ‘cognitive dissonance theory,’ to explain the bizarre turn American politics has taken in the past year.”

Oh, really?

“Cognitive dissonance is when one’s personal attitudes and identities are inconsistent with their beliefs. To ease that discomfort, people rationalize the facts to restore consistency and turn to social networks to reaffirm that rationalization.”

I guess I would say we turned to social networks to validate our lying eyes with the lying eyes of others…, but, that’s just me.  

“After the 2020 election, the explanation for many was that the election must have been rigged [which it was], and the reaffirming social network was Fox News, Van Boven said, ‘If you expect your candidate to win and then your candidate loses, you are shoved into a state of cognitive dissonance. What you thought was supposed to happen doesn’t happen and that feels uncomfortable, so you make sense of it by rationalizing the outcome.’”

Or, when “what you thought was supposed to happen doesn’t happen, and that feels uncomfortable,” you blame the Russians!

Or, you recognize the actual chain of events, and refuse to be an election denier denier.

I don’t remember this being raised when Hillary lost, regarding democrats. I do remember Russian collusion being blamed, however. What would the resident eggheads call that?

Collusion delusion?

“For the study, the researchers took advantage of an unusual ‘natural experiment,’ a hotly contested election with an unprecedented number of mail-in and absentee ballots, which meant the outcome would not be known for days.”

You mean an election with an unprecedented number of UNVERIFIABLE and illegal mail-in and absentee ballots, that were conveniently discovered and counted in the middle of the night?

Those ballots?  

“They surveyed a diverse sample of 1,200 people and asked them how much faith they had that the votes were counted correctly. Half responded between Nov. 4 and 8, just after Election Day when many states’ vote counts had not been confirmed. Half took it between Nov. 9 and 15, after all states had confirmed counts, most media outlets had declared Biden the winner and Biden had delivered his acceptance speech.”

“Participants also reported how much they trusted and consumed 15 media outlets, including Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, USA Today and The Wall Street Journal.”

“As days passed, Republicans grew less confident that the votes were counted fairly, while Democrats grew more confident. Both findings are problematic, said Van Boven, ‘In healthy democracies, citizens are confident that votes were counted as intended regardless of who won.’”

That’s because “as days passed” we learned more about the democrats’ efforts to manipulate the vote, and the legal system’s choice to not address the problems with the vote at all.

We definitely cannot be considered a “healthy democracy” at this point.  

“The researchers were surprised to find that Republicans trusted and consumed only one of the 15 media outlets, Fox News, more than Democrats or Independents did. Democrats, in contrast, trusted and consumed all of the media outlets, except Fox News, more than Republicans or Independents.”

‘“If an individual trusted and consumed any of the other media outlets we measured, aside from Fox News, they trusted the election outcome more,’ said Van Boven.”

And that is because the “other media outlets” pumped out their dutiful propaganda about how this was the most secure election in history, which it obviously wasn’t.

“What made 2020 different? Studies have shown that voters whose candidate loses tend to temporarily lose faith that votes were counted correctly, but if the democracy is healthy losers ultimately consent. 2020 was different. Voters personally identified more closely with their political parties than in past elections, said author Dani Grant, a doctoral student in social psychology. ‘There is a lot more cognitive dissonance if you are not just dealing with disagreement about abstract policies, but you feel like your actual identity is under threat,’ said Grant.”

And it is.

Without fair elections, democracies aren’t democracies.  

Just a reminder that the Texas lawsuit questioning the validity of the 2020 election results was joined by more than a dozen state attorney generals, as well as more than 100 members of the U.S. House. This was a little more than a case of personal cognitive dissonance.

“Trump did not promptly concede, as George H.W. Bush, Al Gore, John McCain and Hillary Clinton did. And the media landscape had changed.”

And the way we accumulated and counted the votes had changed as well.

And why would President Trump “promptly concede” when the election was obviously being stolen from him?

“We now exist in a media landscape that is sharply polarized, and we need to take some initiative to seek more diversity. Otherwise, we may just be reaffirming our preexisting beliefs and notions to make us feel better.”

A diversity of truths?

How does that work?

Perhaps you should direct your concerns towards how our elections are conducted, rather than how the media portrays how our elections ae conducted.

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please share them, and please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.   I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Massive Republican voter turnout!

Yes, folks, the people are really turning out for President Trump in these 2020 primaries…, and he’s unopposed!

It’s crazy!

While all we hear is about is the democrat side of things, the real story of these 2020 primaries is the massive republican voter turnout for President Trump.

It seems people can’t wait to get out there and show their support for him!

That, of course, would never be acknowledged by the fake news media!

They wouldn’t want to even come close to promoting that idea, AT ALL…, that there is ANY type of positive news regarding President Trump, or that his support is setting records in all of these primaries.

Julia Musto of Fox News reports that, ‘“Tuesday’s massive voter turnout for my father is unprecedented,’ according to his son Eric.”

avoters 2

Alex Isenstadt, for Politico, agrees, and says, “Trump drives massive turnout in primaries.”

Julia Musto goes on to report that, “Even as an incumbent, President Trump’s nationwide support in primary states is unprecedented because American voters ‘finally feel like they have a voice,’ Executive Vice President of the Trump Organization Eric Trump said Wednesday.”

“In an interview on ‘Fox & Friends,’ [Eric] Trump explained that the president had more than 600,000 incumbent voters in the highly-contested and delegate-rich state of Michigan. By comparison, former President Barack Obama clinched just under 175,000 [in his re-election campaign].”

avoters 1

‘“So, he was three times Obama as an incumbent, right?’ he asked. ‘So, the last incumbent in 2012…My father has three times the amount of votes cast for him in Michigan than Obama did.’”

“Trump added that there was an ‘even more impressive’ statistic recorded in Washington State,” of all places.

‘“My father has 520,000 votes cast for him right now, alright? There’s only 67 percent in, so votes are still coming in Washington State. No other person in the history of the state has ever gotten to those vote numbers before,’ he said.”

‘“Guys, we’re seeing this across the country. The turnout — I mean he’s not running against anybody. The turnout for a guy who is the incumbent – we’ve never seen numbers like this,’ Trump stated.”

avoters 5

Aaaaaand the liberal, fake news media chooses to look the other way.

Propaganda by omission.

“Trump said that the results of Tuesday’s primaries were the continuation of a pattern of success the president’s campaign had seen during the Iowa caucuses and Nevada primaries.”

‘“I spoke at the Iowa caucuses and I had 600-700 people in a room in an uncontested convention and every single person was wearing a Trump shirt, was wearing a Trump hat,’ Trump continued further. ‘People are pissed off at [the] government. They don’t like the other candidates at all.’”

‘“My father is bringing back the pride of this nation. Everything he’s doing is American; it’s patriotic,’ he concluded. ‘People finally feel like they have a voice again and that’s why people are turning out in record numbers even when they don’t have to.’”

According to Alex Isenstadt, for Politico, “President Donald Trump doesn’t have much of a primary fight on his hands — but Republican voters are nevertheless turning out in droves for him, a warning sign for Democrats in November.”

“The massive turnout is a reflection of organic enthusiasm among conservatives.”

“The President doesn’t have much of a primary fight on his hands?”

How about The President doesn’t have anywhere near a primary fight on his hands, and voters are still turning out in droves for him?

I do agree, however, that this is “a warning sign for Democrats in November.”

The warning sign should read, “Get off of the tracks, because the Trump train is coming and we’re not stopping for anyone or anything!”

avoters 7

“Republicans [are] turning out in historic numbers.”

avoters 3

How many times have we heard the term “historic numbers” the last three years?

And the numbers referred to are all historically positive…, regarding the economy, employment, poverty rates, energy, trade, and on and on.

“Trump received more than 31,000 votes in the Iowa caucus, surpassing the 25,000 Democrats who turned out during Barack Obama’s successful 2012 reelection bid. Trump’s share was more than four times the number of Republicans who caucused during George W. Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign.”

“The vote totals in New Hampshire were even starker. The president received 129,696 votes, more than doubling Obama and Bush’s totals.”

avoters 6

“Republicans such as Ralph Reed, the founder and chairman of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, said Trump’s record on issues dear to conservatives drove turnout in the first two states. He and others said Democrats’ recent impeachment push also motivated his supporters.”

‘“Impeachment has lit a fire under the Trump base — and I anticipate it will burn until Election Day in November,’ said former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, chairman of the pro-Trump Republican Jewish Coalition.”

Oh yeah, Norm!  The fire is definitely lit, and the democrats and their co-conspirators, the fake news, just keep throwing more logs on that fire.

The democrats have decided to throw patience, caution and subtlety to the wind, and they are going to pay dearly for that in November and on into the future.

The democrats’ lies and true anti-American desires have been exposed, and they’re not backing down…, but we aren’t either anymore!

WINNING!

avoters 10

avoters 9

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.

 

Is Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren kidding or is she just “speaking with a forked tongue…, again?”

First of all, I debated whether or not it was even worth commenting about Senator Warren, since she’s only polling like 1%-2% support among democrats in her run for president…, but in the end, I just couldn’t let her get away with her false narratives and “fake news” (lies).

According to David Knowles, an Editor at Yahoo News, “Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Tuesday she would take a “hard pass” on a Fox News invitation to hold a televised town hall event, saying she didn’t want to help the conservative network build credibility with advertisers.”

Ha!  Now that’s a true “holier than thou” liberal elite attitude if I ever saw one!

So having you on their network, Elizabeth…, a person who has defrauded the Native Americans in our country…, and our college education system…, that would help “build credibility with advertisers?”

warren 5

Hmmm.

I think you’re just mad at the Fox News Network for holding you accountable for your racial and cultural identification scandals…, while the rest of the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” looked the other way…, but I could be wrong.

warren 4

“Four of her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination — Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg and Kirsten Gillibrand — have agreed to the events, in which candidates take questions from moderators and voters. Sanders and Klobuchar have already appeared.”

‘“I love town halls. I’ve done more than 70 since January, and I’m glad to have a television audience be a part of them. Fox News has invited me to do a town hall, but I’m turning them down—here’s why…— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) May 14, 2019”

‘“Hate-for-profit works only if there’s profit, so Fox News balances a mix of bigotry, racism, and outright lies with enough legit journalism to make the claim to advertisers that it’s a reputable news outlet. It’s all about dragging in ad money—big ad money,’ Warren wrote.”

Wow!  Pocahontas’ level of confusion is quite impressive!

warren 3

Have any networks demonstrated a more “hate-for-profit” approach than CNN and MSNBC?

No.

Take the last 2 years of fake Russian collusion coverage as well as the “all negative Trump news all the time strategy.”

And which networks exactly have displayed more bigotry and racism than CNN and MSNBC?

No one…, hands down.

And which networks exactly have been caught in intentional lies more often than CNN and MSNBC?

Again…, no one.

So please, Senator Warren…, take your “fake news” story walking.

warren 2

warren 8

‘“But Fox News is struggling as more and more advertisers pull out of their hate-filled space. A Democratic town hall gives the Fox News sales team a way to tell potential sponsors it’s safe to buy ads on Fox—no harm to their brand or reputation (spoiler: It’s not).’”

Ha!  So “Fox News is struggling?”

Hasn’t Fox News been the #1 cable news in the ratings for like…, forever?

Hasn’t Fox News been destroying CNN and MSNBC by HUGE margins for like…, forever?

She should quit drinking that “firewater!”  Just more “fake news.”

warren 6

“In March, citing what it called the ‘inappropriate relationship between President Trump, his administration and Fox News,’ Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez announced that he would not allow Fox News to broadcast any of the party’s 2020 presidential primary debates.”

Oh…, so “Mr. Tolerance,” Tom Perez won’t “allow” Fox News to be a part of the 2020 democrat presidential primary debates?  Because Fox “has an inappropriate relationship” with President Trump?

What?

warren 10

In Perez’s mind, it’s an “inappropriate relationship” because Fox treats The President fairly.

The President responded by tweeting, “Democrats just blocked @FoxNews from holding a debate. Good, then I think I’ll do the same thing with the Fake News Networks and the Radical Left Democrats in the General Election debates! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 7, 2019”

Huh?  You may want to get together with your “biased, liberal propaganda, fakes news media” friends, Mr. Perez, and rethink your position about the debates.

warren 9

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.

The “biased, liberal propaganda, fakes news media” strikes again!

“We should be outraged by FOX and its apologists,” according to The Washington Post.

Another liberal “rag” magazine, The Nation, recently pronounced that, “Fox News has always been propaganda.”

Sounds like just another coordinated, fake news narrative being spun on multiple fronts.

The sheer and utter hypocrisy of the “biased, liberal propaganda, fakes news media” just never ceases to amaze me…, and they just have NO shame.

fake news

The “biased, liberal propaganda, fakes news media” turned its collective head and looked the other way on countless occasions during the Obama years, or when it had to, they “reasoned away” many concerns or dreamed up excuses as they deemed necessary.

Their behavior during Obama’s reign was the definition of being an “apologist.”

Any fair minded people know that the “biased, liberal propaganda, fakes news media” does not even make an attempt anymore to appear fair or balanced with their coverage of President Trump, the republicans, or conservatives in general.

So I’ll tell you what Washington Post…, you and your friends go on and be outraged at whoever you want and the rest of us will be outraged at whoever we want…, ok?

We all know what causes your “outage.”  It’s the fact that FOX and FOX News does not walk in lock step with your liberal agenda.

fakenews 0724 resized

What causes our “outrage” is the fact that the mainstream media has become a propaganda arm of the democrat party and along with liberals and socialists everywhere.

The trust and the reputation of the mainstream media is gone and I don’t think it’s ever coming back.

Congratulations.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

 

The hypocrisy of “the left” knows no bounds!

According to Paul Farhi of The Washington Post, “The Democrat National Committee (DNC) has decided to exclude Fox News Channel from televising any of its candidate debates during the 2019-2020 cycle …”

Is this even legal?  Isn’t this a violation of the freedom of the press?  It surely is at least un-American.

You can’t say the democrats aren’t consistent.

Consistently hypocritical.

Consistently unconstitutional.

“In a statement Wednesday, DNC Chairman Tom Perez cited a story in the New Yorker magazine this week that detailed how Fox has promoted President Trump’s agenda. The article, titled ‘The Making of the Fox News White House,’ suggested that the news network had become a ‘propaganda’ vehicle for Trump.”

(Please see my other blog today on this very topic.)

“I believe that a key pathway to victory is to continue to expand our electorate and reach all voters,” said Perez in his statement to The Washington Post.

Soooo you “expand” your electorate “and reach all voters” by excluding certain news coverage?  You “expand” the reach of your party by excluding the most watched cable news channel on TV?  Is this what they call liberal common sense?  It sounds like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.  You’re a democrat alright!

‘“That is why I have made it a priority to talk to a broad array of potential media partners, including Fox News.  Recent reporting in the New Yorker on the inappropriate relationship between President Trump, his administration and Fox News has led me to conclude that the network is not in a position to host a fair and neutral debate for our candidates. Therefore, Fox News will not serve as a media partner for the 2020 Democratic primary debates,’ Perez added.”

Oh, you mean they won’t be fair and neutral and allow the DNC to provide debate questions to your candidate of choice before the debate, like what happened last time at a CNN debate?

tom perez and brazile

We are all also painfully aware of how “fair and neutral” the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” is towards President Trump and the virtually 100% negative reporting around the clock.

But that’s okay?

It sure is okay…, in the whacky world of irrational and hypocritical democrats.

“Hours later, Trump responded to the decision by suggesting he might seek to retaliate.”

“Democrats just blocked @FoxNews from holding a debate,” he said in a tweet Wednesday night. “Good, then I think I’ll do the same thing with the Fake News Networks and the Radical Left Democrats in the General Election debates!”

Nice retaliatory strike Mr. President!  The DNC obviously didn’t consider what the repercussions of their “stupidness” would be.  That’s what happens when all of these idiots get together in a room and bounce dumb ideas off of each other.

“Numerous networks, including Fox, have submitted proposals to the DNC to televise one of the 12 scheduled debates, which will start in June.”

12 debates?!  And that’s only amongst the democrats!  By the time we get to the twelfth debate there won’t be anything left that the democrats and their socialist government can give away “free” that the democrat candidates will be able to promote.

“So far, the organization has only awarded rights to the first two, to NBC (along with sister networks MSNBC and Telemundo) and to CNN.”

Telemundo?!  Really?

Well, I suppose the DNC does have to be careful to consider the tens of millions of illegal immigrant voters who can’t speak English.

I’m sorry…, I’m bad…, I know it…, but I just couldn’t help myself.

“In a statement, Fox News Senior Vice President Bill Sammon said: ‘We hope the DNC will reconsider its decision to bar Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, all of whom embody the ultimate journalistic integrity and professionalism, from moderating a Democrat presidential debate. They’re the best debate team in the business and they offer candidates an important opportunity to make their case to the largest TV news audience in America, which includes many persuadable voters.’”

We shouldn’t be surprised by these turn of events.  The DNC is just the logical extension of the liberal fascists we see all of the time attempting to silence conservative voices on college campuses around our country and at other public events and public protests.

We are well aware of their “playbook” by now.

In the Socialist democrat world, the freedom of speech only applies to those who believe like they do.  Everyone else must be shouted down, silenced and labeled as racists, misogynists, homophobes and Nazis.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

tom-perez-35030444

CNN’s Chris Cuomo is a chip off the old “fake news” block!

Literally no one watches CNN anymore, so it’s pretty likely you have no idea who Chris Cuomo is.

Well, Mr. Cuomo is the “star” of his own nightly show called “Cuomo Prime Time.”  Wow, well, that’s original…, and catchy too!

His father is the former democrat governor of New York, Mario Cuomo.  Chris obviously didn’t have to climb that career ladder too high.

Recently, Cuomo has gone on record, calling Fox News “State TV,” and “pawns of The President.”

Puhleasssssssssssssssse Mr. Cuomo.  Are you serious?

Do you recall how Barack Obama was treated by the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” during his eight years in office, and even before that, and now afterwards?

Do you recall all of the “softball” interviews?

Do you recall putting a positive spin on anything that came out of the Obama administration?

Do you recall all of the justification, clarification and/or excuse making you and your friends took part in on Obama’s behalf?

Do you recall not questioning anything put out by Obama or his administration?

Do you recall the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media’s” “love affair with Barack, Michelle, and their family?

The utter and unabashed hypocrisy of the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” knows no bounds, and it has no shame.

According to Christina Zhao, reporting for “Weaknews,” I mean “Newsweek,” “CNN anchor Chris Cuomo blasted rival network Fox News as “pawns of this president” and “state TV” while interviewing President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.”

“During the segment, Lewandowski attempted to argue that the president is “more accessible to the media than any president in modern history,” a sentiment that Cuomo strongly disagreed with.”

“That’s poppycock,” Cuomo said. “He won’t even come on CNN.  He only goes where he gets a pat on the back.”

Oh…, you mean like how Obama never came on Fox?  Like that?

And “Poppycock?”

The 1940’s called, Cuomo, and they want their funny sounding words back!

‘“In prime-time TV, and from a management perspective, they are pawns of this president,’ he said later in the segment.”

The New Yorker magazine’s writer Jane Mayer told CNN that Fox News seems to be operating as a “propaganda organization” for the president.

Calling Fox News a “propaganda organization” for President Trump is just another example of CNN operating as a propaganda organization for the democrats.

That is precisely their M.O.

We have seen it right down the line.  They accuse their opponents of doing exactly the same thing they are guilty of doing in order to divert attention away from them and muddle-up the public’s understanding of the situation.

Denying election results.

Voter fraud.

Russian collusion.

Obstruction of justice.

Abuse of power.

Treason.

These are all things the democrats are guilty of, but also things they have projected onto President Trump and his associates, and things the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” has run with to support their liberal, socialist, partners in crime.

Again, just be aware “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” that “We the People” are now operating with our eyes wide open and paying attention, and you can’t just get away with your concocted and twisted narrative anymore!

WINNING!

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

cuomo-prime-time-card-super-tease

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow…, where do I begin?

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

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

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

You call this “bullying?”

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

cnn

 

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.

 

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.

areva martin and david webb

 

“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.

 

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.

da rather fake news

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK…, timeout!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

a new study shows

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑