Who or what is Howard Stern?

I listened to Howard Stern’s comments to George Stephanopoulos recently, regarding the presidential election of 2016, Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton, and I wonder who or what Howard Stern actually is.

stern 6

He is undoubtedly the “king of all media,” with an estimated daily audience of over 60 million people.

That figure by far, and I mean BY FAR, eclipses anyone else on radio or TV.

So, Howard is obviously an intelligent person.

I’m assuming you need some level of intelligence to be the “king of all media.”

stern 5

That is why some of his views, as far as politics, moral issues, and other things in general, cause me to question him.

Either Howard Stern is really just an idiot in disguise, just another liberal brownnoser in disguise, someone who is just generally very confused, or an intentional fraud.

As you can see…, none of the options are very good.

Sorry, Howard.

stern 2

stern 1

I have heard Howard say that he “really wanted Hillary to become president,” and that he voted for her.

He also has said that he feels if Hillary had come on his show she may have had a better chance at winning the election, “because people might have gotten to know the real Hillary.”

Here’s a news flash for you Howard; the LAST thing Hillary wants is for anyone to see the REAL Hillary!

The LAST thing.

Her goal…, 365, 24/7, is to NOT let you see the real Hillary.

The Real Hillary is scary.

The real Hillary is Satan’s grandmother!!!

The real Hillary has long forgotten what “the truth” really is.  In her world, “the truth” is whatever is the most advantageous for her, regardless of where it ranks on the truth meter.

stern 7

Someone with Howard’s supposed knowledge and background should be aware of this…, so either he is ignorant to the truth, or he chooses to side with her for some other ungodly reason.

His stance on abortion is also a strange one.

He comes up with all of these reasons for people to support the concept of women being able to have an abortion, but fails to recognize that no matter how many reasons you come up with that are pro-abortion, they can never outweigh the fact that a child’s life is being terminated here…, and he must realize that.  Especially regarding his own state of New York’s love of late-term and even post birth “abortions.”

He has to be smarter than that, doesn’t he?

Howard has also adopted an anti-Trump stance as well, which like most famous liberals, was a “180” from where they stood on him prior to him winning the election.

stern 8

It was no longer acceptable to be associated with Donald Trump in any way, shape or form now that he threatened “the swamp,” and was in opposition of most liberal ideas and agendas in general.

In conclusion…, Howard would like you to view him as a successful maverick…, as an independent voice, and as a voice of reason…, when in fact Howard Stern is just another especially obnoxious, well-conceived, well-marketed phony.

stern 4

I do.

 

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.

 

 

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:

  1. 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.)
  2. 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.

 

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.

ted kennedy

 

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.

nytimes-fake_news-all_the_news

 

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.)

FakeNewsSweden

“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.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

obama and mexican kids

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑