You want to shame US border agents?  That’s the real shame. 

According to David Montanaro of Fox News, “New York Times op-ed writer calls for public shaming of US Border Patrol agents.”

Ahh yes, “the failing” New York Times, as President Trump likes to say.

border 3

“A human rights professor called for the identities of U.S. Border Patrol agents to be made public so they can be ‘shamed’ for the mistreatment of migrants, saying a ‘mass atrocity’ may be taking place.”

border 2

“Kate Cronin-Furman, an assistant professor of human rights at University College London, wrote in the New York Times over the weekend that Border Patrol and other federal agents must be pressured into ending their participation.”

border 1

Okay…, I’ve got all kinds of problems with this guest op-ed writer.

First of all, she’s not even from the United States!

Second of all, she’s a college professor, an assistant professor actually, a profession otherwise known as a liberal activist and propagandist!

And lastly, she has a hyphenated name.

She wants to “shame” our border agents, as well as make their identities public, because of their “mistreatment of migrants?”

Exactly what kind of “mistreatment” are you accusing them of Ms. Cronin-Furman?

These agents are dealing with tens of thousands of illegal immigrants every month, and I haven’t heard of any cases of “mistreatment.”

They are just doing their job according to the law, as handed down by our dysfunctional houses of elected morons.

borders 9

In fact…, I hear more cases of them going above and beyond what’s required of them.

I would contend that our congressional representatives have a much harder time doing their jobs, while causing much more pain and suffering to actual American citizens in our country.

These aren’t mean people, Ms. Cronin-Furman…, not like you and your liberal propagandist friends.

borders 14

‘“The identities of the individual Customs and Border Protection agents who are physically separating children from their families and staffing the detention centers are not undiscoverable,’ she wrote.”

Oh really?  Could I just mention that YOUR personal information and the personal information of all of YOUR comrades is also “not undiscoverable.”

‘“Immigration lawyers have agent names; journalists reporting at the border have names, photos and even videos.  These agents’ actions should be publicized, particularly in their home communities,’ she added.”

Lawyers and “journalists.”  Now there’s a motley crew for you!

border 15

“Cronin-Furman claimed she was not making ‘an argument for doxxing’ but wants to see an effort to expose the ‘midlevel functionaries who make the system run.’”

What a disingenuous liar.

So you say you’re not making “an argument for doxxing,” but on the other hand you’re calling for the publication of their personal information.  What do you think doxxing is?

Just another typical fascist liberal calling out to other fascist liberals.

‘“The knowledge, for instance, that when you go to church on Sunday, your entire congregation will have seen you on TV ripping a child out of her father’s arms is a serious social cost to bear. The desire to avoid this kind of social shame may be enough to persuade some agents to quit and may hinder the recruitment of replacements,’ she argued.”

The problem is Ms. Cronin-Furman…, how do you know the arms the child is being taken from is their father’s arms?

Are you aware Ms. Cronin-Furman that it is becoming more and more common for children to be used just to cross the border?

Are you aware Ms. Cronin-Furman that in many cases these children are not traveling with their families?

So in all actuality, the picture you want to publicize is more likely to be a border agent RESCUING a child from a human trafficker or worse.

borders 5

borders 6

For someone who is an assistant professor of human rights, you seem more interested in promoting the liberal agenda than “human rights.”

borders 17

‘“For someone who is ‘just following orders,’ the prospect of being internationally shamed as a rights abuser and being unable to travel freely may be significant enough to persuade them to stop participating.’”

Wow!  You’re just full of great ideas aren’t you, Ms. Cronin-Furman?!

Again…, these border agents are just people doing their job, and it’s a dangerous job…, and it’s a thankless job…, and these media hustlers just want to make their job even more difficult, and expose them and their families to additional harassment at home.

According to American Military News, “During Obama’s two-term presidency, from 2008 to 2016, border deaths ranged from 251 to 471 each year. The 471 deaths occurred in 2012, and that is the second highest number of border deaths in the last 20 years.  In the first two years of Trump’s presidency, border deaths have actually decreased [per Border Patrol data].”

I don’t recall hearing any outage during Obama’s presidency.  I don’t recall hearing one word about it actually. Nothing.

So what changed?

We all know “what” changed Ms. Cronin-Furman.

We all know what changed.

And it wasn’t your concern about “human rights.”

And it wasn’t your concern about these migrant children and families.

borders 4

 

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 Washington Post…, “Democracy dies on its pages.” 

I’m responding to a recent article in The Washington Post titled, “Sarah Sanders Watch: ‘Mouthpiece for fascism’?”

The article is by Erik Wemple, a media critic for The Washington Post, whose tag line is “Democracy dies in darkness.”

It must be getting pretty “dark” over there at the old Washington Post.

sanders 4

In the article, Mr. Wemple whines about the White House Press Secretary, Sarah Sanders, not having had a traditional White House briefing in quite a while.

Do you really wonder why that is Mr. Wemple, or are you just pretending not to know?

Well…, in case it is the former, I’ll clue you in.

First of all, it’s not written anywhere that these press briefings have to occur at all.

Second, most of the media that attended these briefings were not interested in getting briefed.  They were only interested in attacking President Trump, his administration, and Sarah Sanders.

Is it any wonder this is one tradition The President isn’t too concerned about honoring?

Mr. Wemple then continues to whine that Sarah Sanders seems to prefer to discuss her talking points with more “sympathetic” Fox News interviewers.

sanders 3

I don’t think “Sympathetic” is quite the right word here.  I think I would go with the term “fair and balanced.”

It wasn’t too long ago that I can remember Obama’s press secretaries avoiding the reporters from Fox News as opposed to any of the remaining horde of truly “sympathetic,” liberal propaganda reporters.

I can also recall the Obama administration actually spying on reporters who didn’t play by his “swampy” rules…, but I digress.

Mr. Wemple then proceeds to dredge up the tired “obstruction of justice” topic…, again…, claiming, “The Mueller report documented close to a dozen instances of possible obstruction of justice by President Trump,” while claiming Mueller “did not charge any crimes in deference to Justice Department policy toward sitting presidents.”

If I’ve said this once I’ve said this a hundred times…, IF ROBERT MUELLER COULD HAVE CHARGED PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G…, BELIEVE ME, HE WOULD HAVE.

IF ROBERT MUELLER COULD HAVE RECOMMENDED CHARGING PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G…, BELIEVE ME, HE WOULD HAVE.

Mr. Wemple then continues to cry about Sarah Sanders “hitting back” at charges made by various democrats, and actually defending The President and his administration.

You do understand that is precisely what her job is don’t you Mr. Wemple?

sanders 2

He then refers to a tweet by Alec Baldwin (that wise old sage and ever on duty guardian of democracy…, cough, cough), where he referred to Sarah Sanders as a “mouthpiece-for-fascism…,” a claim Mr. Wemple obviously supports.

Fascism?

Fascism, Mr. Wemple?

Ok…, let’s talk about fascism and fascists a little bit.

Have you heard of The Poynter Institute, Mr. Wemple?  I’m sure you have, but most other people haven’t.  It’s kind of a well-kept and camouflaged secret.  In a nutshell, The Poynter Institute is a boot camp for liberal, socialist, fascist, “journalists.”  It’s the kind of “journalism” school that Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, could really appreciate, and a school that is well represented by many members of the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” who make Washington D.C. their home.

Oh…, and by the way…, was it Sarah Sanders who was pushing the false narrative of Russian collusion for the last 2 years, or was it the “liberal propaganda,” “mainstream” media?

Who again are the fascists attempting to control the media?

In addition…, who in “the media” are the ones accounting for over 90% negative articles concerning President Trump?  If you take out the positive stories (or at least the non-negative ones) by Fox News, that means the rest of “the media” is basically 100% negative 100% of the time.  And saying that doesn’t even cause me to flinch.

Who again are the fascists attempting to control the narrative through negative propaganda and by omission?

Your cover has been blown Eric Wemple.  Just like the cover has been blown for all of the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” since President Trump ran for president.

The “mainstream” media being anywhere close to fair and balanced is the problem here, not Sarah Sanders.

sanders 1

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.

If there wasn’t any negative news about President Trump there’d be no news at all!

The “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” is just relentless when it comes bashing our president.

In an editorial on the “Investor’s Business Daily” website, they claim, “Media Trump Hatred Shows In 92% Negative Coverage of His Presidency: Study”

trump neg 7

They continue by saying, “Anti-Trump Media: To say that the big networks haven’t exactly had a love affair with Donald Trump, as they plainly did with President Obama, is an understatement. A new survey shows that not only is coverage of Trump overwhelmingly negative, but the president’s biggest accomplishment — the roaring economy — gets almost no attention.”

No…, not “almost no attention,” NO attention!

trump neg 9

“What they found was, as Trump himself might say, sad: ‘Over the summer, the broadcast networks have continued to pound Donald Trump and his team with the most hostile coverage of a president in TV news history — 92% negative, vs. just 8% positive.’”

I would argue that even these numbers are a misnomer.  I would say news coverage is 92% negative, 7% is just “non-negative” and 1% or less are actually positive.

trump neg 2

“Moreover, the very focus of what the media cover is highly selective. Some two-thirds of the Trump coverage came from five topics, including the Russia investigation, immigration, the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, North Korea, and U.S.-Russia relations.

Let’s see, what’s missing from that list? Oh yes, the one thing that’s overwhelmingly positive for President Trump: the economy.”

In other words…, propaganda by omission.

“If we don’t report it, it didn’t happen, or it’s not important.”

Even when they report something of a positive nature, it always has to come with a caveat.

For example, here we have typical negative Trump headline by Joe Williams for FOX Business:

“US adds 75,000 jobs in May, far less than expected.”

Can we not just be glad that we added 75,000 jobs in May?

And what about the unemployment rate in the country that remains at 3.6 percent…, the lowest since 1969?  I haven’t heard much about that.

Propaganda by omission and the “but” news.

President Trump cut taxes for everyone, but…

President Trump has brought manufacturing jobs back to America, but…

President Trump is making NATO allies finally pay their fair share, but…

President Trump is making other countries deal fairly with us regarding trade, but…

But, but, but.

trump neg 6

In addition to the “but” news, we also see bizarre, negative, fake news articles that just leaves you scratching your head.

For example:

“Washington Post columnist links Trump’s UK fashion choices to life missteps.”

By Bradford Betz for Fox News.

“If you can’t properly wear a tux, you’re going to have a lot of problems in life, according to Washington Post fashion critic Robin Givhan.”

trump neg 1

“Her 965-word, June 5 article dresses down President Trump, the First Lady– and to a lesser extent– his family – for what she called poor fashion sensibilities during an appearance the Buckingham Palace Banquet this week.”

“Givhan goes on to equate fashion with diplomacy. With this equation, Givhan’s concludes, we can gain subtle insights into the president’s mind.’

What?

The “fashion critic” feels the need to join in the Trump bashing as well?

It also appears that “the fashion critic,” an esteemed and necessary position in its own right, is also a qualified psychoanalyst!

Then we have another article published by “Yahoo Style UK,” titled:

“Disrespectful Melania Trump criticized for leaving sunglasses on during D-Day ceremony.”

Excuse me?

How is this this being “disrespectful?”

trump neg1306-donald-trump-dday.w700.h700

If anything, Yahoo is being disrespectful of the First Lady.

Then we have an article for the “Style” section of “The Daily Beast,” by   Alaina Demopoulos and Tim Teeman titled:

“Is That a Hat or UFO? Melania and Ivanka Trump Bid a Fashionably Fierce Farewell to U.K.”

Can you ever imagine these people taking pot shots at Michelle Obama’s wardrobe?

Of course not.

The article went on and on about all of the poor Trump fashion choices in their opinion, and finished off by saying, “The queen, meanwhile, looked her usual, utterly on-point distinctive self, in a wonderful hot pink coat dress and hat (with non-life-threatening brim), while imminently doomed British Prime Minister Theresa May donned a curious spearmint coat, with turned in collars, over white dress and a hat that was a complementary satellite dish shape to Melania’s UFO.”

trump neg 3

So the bottom line is…, all of the fashion choices made by royals, socialists and liberals are exquisite, while those made by conservatives are horrendous.

Lastly, we have a typical “fake news,” “liberal propaganda” article by   Heather Timmons, titled, “Joe Biden beats Donald Trump in Texas presidential poll.”

Does anyone really believe that Joe Biden would beat Donald Trump in Texas?

Of course not.

They don’t tell us that the poll question that was asked was, “Who is the creepiest presidential candidate?”

In this instance, Joe Biden wins hands down!

trump neg 4

 

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.

What the heck has happened to Venezuela?!  I’ll break it down for you.

Let’s look at a basic and condensed timeline, pertaining to Venezuela, for starters:

1992 – Venezuela becomes the 3rd richest country in the western hemisphere, behind only the United States and Canada.

1993 – President Carlos Andrés Pérez is impeached for embezzlement of public funds.

1998 – A collapse in confidence in the existing parties saw the election of former coup-involved career officer Hugo Chávez and the launch of the Bolivarian Revolution and socialism. The “Bolivarian Revolution” refers to a left-wing populist social movement and political process in Venezuela led by the late Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, who founded the Fifth Republic Movement in 1997 and the United Socialist Party of Venezuela in 2007.

1999 – The “revolution” began when a “new” Constitution for Venezuela was written.

2001 – Venezuela voted for a socialist president to address “income inequality.”

venezuela 8

2004 – Private healthcare is completely socialized.

2007 – All higher education becomes “free.”

2009 – The private ownership of guns is banned.

2012 – Bernie Sanders is quoted as saying, “Venezuelans are living the American dream better than Americans.”

venezuela 6

2014 – Government opposition leaders are imprisoned.

2016 – Food shortages become a widespread problem.

venezuela 13

2017 – The Venezuelan constitution and elections are suspended.

2018 – The country’s economic policies lead to extreme hyperinflation, with an inflation rate of 1,370,000% by the end of the year.

2019 – It is estimated that more than 3 million people have fled Venezuela in recent years.

2019 – Venezuelan protesters are attacked and killed by their own government in order to suppress their dissidence.

 

Venezuela’s socialist governments have been in power since 1999, taking over the country at a time when Venezuela had huge inequality.

But the socialist polices brought in which aimed to help the poor backfired, and made the situation even worse, of course.  Companies now controlled by the government failed, and price controls to make basic goods more affordable to the poor by capping prices meant that Venezuelan businesses no longer found it profitable to produce them.  Eventually, the government subsidies of all facets of the economy were unsustainable.

In only 27 years Venezuela has turned a “rags to riches” story into a “riches to rags” story.

venezuela 5

Like Margaret Thatcher, the former Britsh Prime Minister once said, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

Does any of the Venezuela story sound familiar today in America?

There certainly appear to be some similarities in the early stages happening here.

venezuela 2

We see an impeachment happy democrat Congress trying to overturn a presidential election.

We see many democrat politicians and democrat presidential candidates calling for a new constitution or drastic changes to our existing one.

venezuela 10

We constantly hear democrat politicians and democrat presidential candidates touting government solutions for “income inequality,” don’t we?

venezuela 9

We hear democrat politicians and democrat presidential candidates calling for a complete government takeover of our healthcare system.

Many democrat politicians and democrat presidential candidates are proposing “free” college.

And lastly, we hear many democrat politicians and democrat presidential candidates calling for radical changes to our gun laws, changes to the 2nd amendment or the complete removal of our right to bear arms.

The intentions of the American democrat party are apparent.

The democrats want to destroy America as we know it.

venezuela 3

The choice here is painfully clear.

If you want to follow in Venezuela’s footsteps…, elect democrats.

It’s as simple as that.

The only people who benefit from a socialist government are those in government.

venezuela 7

They apparently long for power that badly that they are willing to turn everyone elses life into a living hell for their own sakes.

They can only do this if we let them, however.

Remember…, the Venezuelan people voted for what they got.

In the end…, it’s their own fault.

And in the end…, we’ll choose our own fate as well.

venezuela 12

 

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.

 

Okay…, now that Mueller’s phony investigation is over, let’s find out what really happened during the 2016 presidential election!

Don’t you feel sorry for Robert Mueller?

I mean he was trying his hardest to pin something, anything, on President Trump, but he had to deal with tripping over evidence against Hillary Clinton and the rest of “the swamp” at every turn!

It must have made his job quite challenging.

I haven’t read the Mueller Report yet, of course, but I’m willing to bet that over the course of his investigation, he and his motley crew didn’t come across ONE thing that would reflect negatively on Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ or the Obama FBI.

Imagine that!

Let’s wait and see, but if this is the case, and I’m sure it is, this would only further substantiate the fact that Robert Mueller’s “investigation” was a complete farce, and just a “witch hunt” like President Trump claimed all along.

Kimberley Strassel, an editorial board member for The Wall Street Journal agrees.  She says, “Mueller’s investigation is done.  Now dig into the real scandal — missteps of Comey, FBI.”

She has gone on to call for the declassification of all documents related to the Mueller report.

“The American public deserves to get the full picture of the special counsel’s investigation,” she argues.

Ya, it would be nice to see what Mueller chose NOT to investigate, or things he chose to look the other on.  By all means, let’s drag all of this out into the sunlight!

Perhaps, once they realize what they are asking for, the democrats will start singing a different tune about wanting everything associated with the “investigation” released and subpoenaing Mueller to testify about his report.

“Attorney General William Barr has reported to Congress that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has cleared President Trump and his campaign team of claims of conspiring with Russia during the 2016 election.  This is more than an exoneration.  It’s a searing indictment of the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], as well as a reminder of the need to know the story behind the bureau’s corrosive investigation.”

“Mr. Mueller’s report likely doesn’t put it that way, but it’s the logical conclusion of his no-collusion finding. The FBI unleashed its powers on a candidate for the office of the U.S. presidency, an astonishing first. It did so on the incredible grounds that the campaign had conspired to aid a foreign government. And it used the most aggressive tools in its arsenal—surveillance of U.S. citizens, secret subpoenas of phone records and documents, even human informants.”

“Americans now deserve a full accounting of the missteps of former FBI Director James Comey and his team—in part so that this never happens again.”

“The wreckage is everywhere. The nation has been engulfed in conspiracy theories for years.  A presidency was hemmed in by the threat of a special counsel.  Citizens have gone to jail not for conspiracy [or collusion, or obstruction], but for after-the-fact interactions with Mr. Mueller’s team.  Dozens more have spent enormous amounts of money and time defending their reputations.”

These people were all collateral damage in the effort to bring down President Trump.

“None of this should ever have happened absent highly compelling evidence—from the start—of wrongdoing. Yet from what we know, the FBI operated on the basis of an overheard conversation of third-tier campaign aide George Papadopoulos, as well as a wild “dossier” financed by the rival presidential campaign.  Mr. Mueller’s no-collusion finding amounts to a judgment that there never was any evidence.  The Papadopoulos claim was thin, [and] the dossier a fabrication.”

And what about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court abuses, and all of the downright treasonous actions that can be attributed to the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ and the Obama FBI?

The tide has definitely turned here and we have them on the run!

Now it’s time to dole out some real justice!

LOCK HER UP!

LOCK THEM UP!

LOCK ‘EM ALL UP!

 

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.

treason

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 disingenuous “biased, liberal, fake news media” tries to paint President Trump as a liar…, again, regarding Mexico and the border wall. 

According to Ying Ma of Fox News, “Trump-haters are again foaming at the mouth over comments made by The President regarding the border wall he has promised to build.  Once again, they are wrong about their criticism of the president.”

“President Trump noted last week that his campaign promise to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it ‘obviously’ did not mean getting a check from the Mexican government directly.  Rather, he said, Mexico will be paying for the wall indirectly, ‘many, many times over’ via the trade agreement his administration recently renegotiated with Canada and Mexico to replace NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement).”

“The anti-Trump media wasted no time accusing the president of lying. CNN, featuring all-out indignation from its anchors, promptly replayed video footage from Trump campaign rallies showing Trump and his raucous crowds chanting that Mexico will pay for the wall.”

“The Washington Post has chimed in as well and declared in a headline: ‘Trump falsely asserts he never promised Mexico would directly pay for the border wall.’”

“Meanwhile, Politifact screamed out its own verdict: ‘Trump says he didn’t say Mexico would write US a check for border wall.  But he did.’”

Before our friends in the “biased, liberal. Fake news media” go getting too excited, let’s remember that it was only a couple weeks ago that the congress finally authorized any wall spending, and only $1.375 billion at that, so there hasn’t even been an opportunity for Mexico to kick in for anything until just recently.

Nevertheless, it is extremely disingenuous for his critics to huff and puff over what they perceive as a lie.

Do you recall such an uproar after former President Obama declared, “If you like your doctor you can keep doctor.  If you like your plan you can keep your plan.”  Or how about, “Every family will save $2,500 on this plan on average.”  Or how about, “The Affordable Care Act” (ObamaCare) won’t add one dime to the federal deficit.”

I sure don’t, and these were actual premeditated lies…, just to name a few!

It’s just another example to the “biased, liberal, fake news media” and their propaganda by omission.

“One could disagree with the substance [of President Trump’s claims], but those pretending to be honest and objective observers of President Trump should at least try to understand why ‘build the wall’ … became a rallying cry during the last presidential campaign.”

“The chant reflected voters’ frustration that Mexico was engaging in unfair practices, whether in trade or immigration, while politicians in Washington on both the left and the right did nothing about it”

“Candidate Trump promised to change this.  If Trump-haters paid attention to this core idea, they might understand why Trump supporters care far more about whether the president builds the wall and strengthen border security than they care about whether Mexico pays for the wall directly or indirectly.”

BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!

 

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.

build the wall

Listen to Cher sing her #1 hit, “Do You Believe in Life After Liberalism!?”  

Why anyone cares what Cher has to say is beyond me, but in the liberals’ world it seems she is considered a wise old sage, ala Barbra Streisand, Bette Midler, and Whoopi Goldberg.

In this instance, Cher has demanded that Nancy Pelosi end this partial government shutdown and fund the border wall, tweeting to Nancy, “DON’T DIE ON THIS HILL.”

Maybe I need to reconsider my thoughts on Cher!

Cher has also admitted that she felt she went “too far” with her latest criticisms of President Trump (Whaaat?!), although she’s not exactly sorry for calling him a “cancer ravaging our nation (That sounds more like the Cher I know and love!).”

“I Say What I feel, But There’s a Responsibility That Goes With That,” the 71-year-old singer and actress tweeted. “I Walk Knifes Edge, But Sometimes It’s Too far. This Is Not An Apology….Its a Reprimand.”

She continued, “Just Because I CAN SAY ANYTHING…Doesn’t Mean I SHOULD. Sometimes I Learn The Hard Way, Over & Over. Humans are Fallible.”

Cher’s semi-apology came shortly after she described Trump as a “malignant tumor eating its way through our constitution” in a since-deleted tweet, according to Breitbart News Network.  The news site also reported that Cher called President Trump a “criminal,” a “sociopath” and a “despot.”

According to Fox News, “This is hardly the first time Cher has lashed out against Trump and members of his administration.”

“At an August 2016 Hillary Clinton fundraiser, the singer compared Trump to Hitler and told reporters that Trump was ‘a racist, he’s a misogynist, he’s a horrible person.’”

“She took to Twitter in January to express her sentiments about White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders’ style and shamed her for her everyday wear.”

Cher’s tweet read, “Would someone please tell Sarah Huckabee Sanders to stop dressing like a sister wife?”

“The singer illustrated her tweet with an image of two women in stereotypical clothing.  In the photo the women also sport braids, plain lace-up shoes and high-neck dresses with long sleeves and puffy shoulders.”

After President Trump delivered a prime-time address from the Oval Office making the case for funding the border wall, which was followed by a response from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who argued that the president must reopen the government in order to continue conversations about border security, Cher took to Twitter to blast the president for promising that Mexico would pay for the wall and demanded him to end the government shutdown.

The next day, however, she called out Pelosi: “NANCY YOU ARE A HERO. LET (Trump) HAVE HIS FKNG MONEY. PPL WILL STARVE LOSE THEIR HOMES, B UNABLE 2 C DRS.”

Cher then demanded Democrats to “stop” the shutdown before Trump does: “HELL B HERO… HE’LL EAT UR LUNCH & STEAL UR LUNCH YOU’LL B FKD 6 WAYS 2 SUNDAY.DONT DIE ON THIS HILL. HE STOPS AT NOTHING.”

I’m sorry Nancy, but I feel that I have to go along with Cher on this one.  You need to let President Trump have the money for the wall.

“If I could turn back time…,” I’d vote for Donald Trump all over again!

Winning!

 

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.

cher turn back time

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.

 

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.

remember-when-you-said-trump-would-never-be-president-but-36286487

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑