The “1619 Project:” What the hell is it, and why the hell is it?

In a nutshell, the “1619 Project” is just more racially divisive, liberal propaganda…, but let’s dissect this “project” a bit more.

a1619 28

This “1619 Project” may be something new for many of us, or something you may have heard about, but aren’t really sure what it is.  Or, you may think you know exactly what it is.

In any case, here’s what the 1619 Project is.

The 1619 Project is an ongoing project, developed by The New York Times Magazine in 2019 [Warning! Warning! Danger Will Robinson!], with the goal of “reframing American history” around slavery and the contributions of African Americans.

a1619 7

a1619 9

a1619 8

Can we not properly reflect back about slavery, and highlight the contributions made to our country by African Americans, without “reframing American history?”

The answer, of course, is “yes…,” but not if you’re going to use these topics to push an anti-American agenda, and hopefully create racial divisiveness.

The project was timed for the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in the Virginia colony in 1619, and suggests that this date represents the “nation’s birth year,” not 1776.

a1619 5

I cannot see how this could be the case…, in any case!

There was no “nation” present at the time to even be born.

Nor was there even any idea of an independent nation being conceived.

a1619 1

The 1619 Project is an interactive project [not really] directed by Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for The New York Times, with contributions by the newspaper’s writers, including essays on the history of different aspects of contemporary American life which the authors believe have “roots in slavery and its aftermath.”

a1619 2

Hannah-Jones, who is supposedly an “investigative journalist,” has written about topics such as racial segregation, desegregation and re-segregation in American schools, and housing discrimination, civil rights, and social justice and injustice, and has spoken about these issues on national public radio broadcasts (NPR).

I would call her more of an opinion writer, or an historical fiction writer.

We know that some people see EVERYTHING through racial goggles.

a1619 22

“The project” also includes poems, short fiction, and a photo essay. Originally conceived as a special issue of The New York Times magazine, for August 20, 2019, it was soon turned into a full-fledged “project,” including a special broadsheet section in the newspaper, live events, and a multi-episode podcast series.

The term “project” seems like it is being used as a cover word for what is an “indoctrination curriculum” and a propaganda vehicle.

The fact is, African Americans would like us all to think they make up about half of America’s population.

a1619 6

But that simply is not the case.

In 1860, those of African descent accounted for about 14 percent of the population.  In 2020 they comprise about 13½ percent of the population.  Yet they would like their influence and representativeness to look more like 50 percent.

Joseph Carroll for the Gallup News Service reports that, “The latest U.S. Census findings on the increasing diversity of America have received considerable attention this year. Americans seem to realize that the United States is a diverse nation, but recent polling suggests the public thinks the nation is more diverse than it actually is. Americans generally overestimate, to a significant degree, the percentage of the U.S. population that is either Black or Hispanic.”

“Perhaps because lower-income and non-white Americans are more likely to come into contact with blacks and Hispanics, these subgroups are most likely to overestimate the U.S. black and Hispanic populations. The average non-white estimates that 40% of the U.S. population is black and 35% of the population is Hispanic. Americans earning less than $20,000 estimate the black percentage of the U.S. population to be 42%, and the Hispanic percentage to comprise 37%.”

Anyway…, getting back to “the project…”

“The project” has sparked criticism and debate among prominent historians and political commentators, however. In a letter published in The New York Times in December 2019, historians Gordon S. Wood, James M. McPherson, Sean Wilentz, Victoria Bynum and James Oakes expressed “strong reservations” about “the project” and requested factual corrections, accusing “the project” of putting ideology before historical understanding.

Really?!

a1619 26

Imagine that!

Followers of MrEricksonRules already know that far be it for any liberal to let those nagging facts get in the way of their prescribed narrative!

In response, Jake Silverstein, the editor of The New York Times Magazine, defended the accuracy of the 1619 Project and declined to issue corrections.

What’d I tell you?!

Jake Silverstein probably still thinks “Russian collusion” is a factual thing!

a1619 23

a1619 24

In March 2020, historian Leslie M. Harris, who served as a fact-checker for the 1619 Project, wrote that the authors had ignored her corrections, and was told that “the project” was a “needed corrective” to prevailing historical narratives.

Like I said, facts be damned!  The end justifies the means!

“Project” creator Nikole Hannah-Jones was awarded the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary on the 1619 Project.

Oh…, of course she was!

Does winning a Pulitzer prize actually mean anything anymore?

Pulitzer prizes are now solely handed out to liberal propagandists as a reward for being good “useful idiots!”

“The project” addresses “the beginning of American slavery.” which it places in 1619.  It was launched in August 2019 to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the arrival of enslaved Africans in the English colonies and its legacy. The first enslaved Africans in the English colonies of mainland North America arrived in August 1619. A ship carrying 20–30 people who had been enslaved by a joint African-Portuguese war on Ndongo in modern Angola, landed at Point Comfort in the colony of Virginia.

“The project” was based on a proposal by Hannah-Jones to dedicate an issue of the magazine to a re-examination of the legacy of slavery in America, at the anniversary of the arrival of the first slaves to Virginia.

Please note, the truth is, these 20-30 slaves were brought here to be pedaled, THEY WERE NOT REQUESTED TO BE SENT HERE.

Michael Guasco for SMITHSONIANMAG.COM says, “As historian John Thornton has shown us, the African men and women who appeared almost as if by chance in Virginia in 1619 were there because of a chain of events involving Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands and England. Virginia was part of the story, but it was a mere blip on the radar screen.”

The plan of “the project” was to challenge the notion that the history of the United States began in 1776.

a1619 25

1776 is celebrated in the United States as the official beginning of the nation, with the Declaration of Independence issued on July 4, even though we did not officially declare nationhood with this act.

It wasn’t until 1783 that the colonies defeated the British to gain their independence.

And it wasn’t until 1789 that The Constitution was adopted, and George Washington became our first president.

The initial “project” quickly grew into an even larger project. “The project” encompasses multiple issues of the magazine, with related materials in multiple other publications of the Times as well as a project curriculum developed in collaboration with the Pulitzer Center, for use in schools.

So, we’re going to be teaching this stuff in schools, even though, as stated before, “In March 2020, historian Leslie M. Harris, who served as a fact-checker for the 1619 Project, wrote that the authors had ignored her corrections, but that ‘the project’ was a ‘needed corrective’ to prevailing historical narratives,” and that “the project” was accused of “putting ideology before historical understanding.”

a1619 12

The project employed a panel of historians and had support from the Smithsonian, for fact-checking, research and development. The project was envisioned with the condition that almost all of the contributions would be from African-American contributors, deeming the perspective of black writers an essential element of the story to be told.

Of course…, even though none of these contributors were actual slaves, nor were their parents…, but they were “an essential element of ‘the story’ to be told.

And, oh, what a “story” it was.

The Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting has made available free online lesson plans, is collecting further lesson plans from teachers, and helps arrange for speakers to visit classes. The Center considers most of the lessons usable by all grades from elementary school through college.

Wow…, this is really a full-blown indoctrination pity party, designed to make white people feel as guilty as possible, and black people to feel as victimized and as important as possible.

a1619 27

a1619 14

a1619 21

According to Vox [an internet news site], as of August 19, 2019, the project, harshly criticized by some conservatives, had “largely earned praise from academics, journalists and politicians alike.”

Ahhh, the three liberal amigos! Always ready to worship at the altar of racism and social injustice.

a1619 17

The positive reviews include the analysis by Alexandria Neason for the Columbia Journalism Review, and the review by Ellen McGirt, published in Fortune magazine which declared the project “wide-reaching and collaborative, unflinching, and insightful” and a “dramatic and necessary corrective to the fundamental lie of the American origin story.”

I guess that would depend on what “American origin story” you’re referring to.

Timothy Sandefur who deemed “the project’s” goal worthy, but observed that the articles persistently went wrong trying to connect everything with slavery. Phillip W. Magness who wrote that “the Project” provided a distorted economic history borrowed from “bad scholarship” of the New History of Capitalism (NHC), and Rich Lowry who wrote there was much truth and much to learn from in Hannah-Jones’ lead essay but it left out unwelcome facts about slavery, smeared the revolution, distorted The Constitution and misrepresented the founding era and Lincoln.

Is that all?

a1619 15

The World Socialist Web Site criticized what its editors consider the Times’ reactionary, politically motivated “falsification of history” that wrongly centers around racial rather than class conflict, and published a series of interviews with prominent historians critical of the project.

Marxist political scientist Adolph Reed dismissed the 1619 Project as “the appropriation of the past in support of whatever kind of ‘just-so’ stories about the present are desired.”

Let’s be clear…, the socialists and Marxists like using African Americans when it’s convenient, but they definitely have their own agendas.

In February 2020, a rival project called the 1776 Project, published with the support of The Washington Examiner, was launched by a number of African American academics who dispute the narrative of the 1619 Project.

Hmmm…, well isn’t that interesting?

I’m sure they were quickly shuffled off to a corner of some unimportant library somewhere.

In December 2019, five leading American historians, Sean Wilentz, James McPherson, Gordon Wood, Victoria Bynum and James Oakes, sent a letter to the Times expressing objections to the framing of the project and accusing the authors of a “displacement of historical understanding by ideology.” The letter disputed the claim, made in the Hannah-Jones’ introductory essay to the 1619 Project, that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.” The Times published the letter along with a rebuttal from the magazine’s editor-in-chief, Jake Silverstein. Wood responded in a letter by saying, “I don’t know of any colonist who said that they wanted independence in order to preserve their slaves.  No colonist expressed alarm that the mother country was out to abolish slavery in 1776.” In an article in The Atlantic, Wilentz responded to Silverstein, writing, “No effort to educate the public in order to advance social justice can afford to dispense with a respect for basic facts.” and disputing the factual accuracy of Silverstein’s defense of the project.

The publication of the project received varied reactions from political figures.

And these reactions were split along party lines, as you would expect.

Democratic Senator Kamala Harris praised the project, in a tweet, stating “The #1619Project is a powerful and necessary reckoning of our history. We cannot understand and address the problems of today without speaking truth about how we got here.”

a1619 20

Several high-profile conservatives criticized the project. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich criticized the project as “brainwashing” and “propaganda,” in a tweet, and later wrote an op-ed characterizing it as “left-wing propaganda masquerading as the truth.” Republican Senator Ted Cruz also equated it with propaganda.

In July 2020, Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas proposed the “Saving American History Act of 2020.” prohibiting K-12 schools from using federal funds to teach curriculum related to the 1619 project, and make schools that did ineligible for federal professional-development grants. Cotton added that “The 1619 Project is a racially divisive and revisionist account of history that threatens the integrity of the Union by denying the true principles on which it was founded.”

But wait, there’s more.

alabor 16

According to Desi Gomez of the Los Angeles Times, “The ‘1619 Project,’ the New York Times’ award-winning multimedia series that examines slavery’s lingering effects on contemporary life, is about to go widescreen with the help of Oprah Winfrey and Lionsgate.”

a1619 4

“Creator Nikole Hannah-Jones, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist for the New York Times Magazine, and the NYT will work with Winfrey and Lionsgate to adapt “The 1619 Project” into a set of feature films and television shows.”

“Hannah-Jones and Winfrey will produce all adapted content alongside Caitlin Roper, an editor of ‘The 1619 Project’ and head of scripted entertainment at the New York Times.”

“Winfrey expressed her honor to be involved in the adaptation in a tweet, recalling that she ‘stood in tearful applause for the profound offering that [the project] was giving our culture and nation.’”

“A timeline for its adaptation has not yet been revealed.”

I can’t wait.

Please remember, while whites in this country are berated on a daily basis by angry African Americans, that 360,222 men died, from the North, in the Civil War, to free the slaves and end slavery in America.

I wonder if that will make it into “The 1619 Project” movie anywhere?

 

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 if 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.

We’re all entitled to our opinions.  I value yours and your feedback as well.

I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

The New York Times is liberal? 

Yessiree, Bob!

The New York Times is as liberal as the day is long…, and then some.

But it’s not just that.

The real offense of The New York Times is that they’re intentionally deceitful, intentionally disingenuous, and intentionally propagandistic.

Those are their real “crimes.”

abari 4

Being just a “good old liberal” these days is now a position not to be tolerated by the radical left.

If you’re not a self-proclaimed, full-fledged. socialist/communist/fascist, you better stand back and stand down.

Oliver Darcy of CNN Business writes, “Controversial opinion writer Bari Weiss resigns from The New York Times, blasting paper for ‘illiberal environment.’”

abari 3

First of all, wouldn’t a “controversial” opinion writer be a good thing?

That is, unless they’re only tolerated as long as their opinion matches the opinion dictated by the New York Times.

“New York (CNN) Bari Weiss, a controversial opinion writer for The New York Times, resigned from the newspaper on Monday, blasting the institution on her way out in a scathing letter explaining why she chose to leave her job.”

abari 1

“In the resignation letter Weiss posted online Tuesday, the self-described ‘politically homeless’ writer criticized The Times for fostering what she called an ‘illiberal environment’ that she said was ‘especially heartbreaking.’”

FL: Bari Weiss in Conversation with Alana Newhouse during the Mi

‘“Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times,’ Weiss wrote. ‘But Twitter has become its ultimate editor.’”

The whole process was good for Bari, however, until the process swept over her, and swept by her, and is now proceeding to bite her in her own backside.

“Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions,’ Weiss added.”

Bite your tongue, you heretical sea hag!

The last thing the radical left needs is people drawing their own conclusions!

“News of Weiss’ departure was first reported by ‘Vice’ and confirmed by The Times.  Kathleen Kingsbury, The Times’ acting editorial page editor, thanked Weiss in a statement for her ‘many contributions.’”

Her biggest and best contribution being her latest decision to get out of the way of their Marxist propaganda mission.

‘“I’m personally committed to ensuring that The Times continues to publish voices, experiences and viewpoints from across the political spectrum in the Opinion report,’ Kingsbury said.”

abari 6

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

abari 7

“Weiss generated controversy for her criticism of aspects of progressive culture, particularly with regards to free speech.”

We mustn’t have any of that!  Free speech, that is!

“Last week, she was one of the dozens of writers who signed an open letter published in Harper’s Magazine that spoke out against so-called cancel culture.”

How dare she!

“Weiss faced criticism in June when the newspaper faced backlash over the publication of Republican Sen. Tom Cotton’s op-ed, which argued for sending in military troops to U.S. cities to quash unrest that had broken out in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd.  In a series of tweets, Weiss tweeted that there was a ‘civil war’ that has been ‘raging’ inside The Times between the ‘wokes’ and older ‘liberals.’ The tweets drew public backlash from some of Weiss’ own colleagues.”

“Weiss said in her resignation letter that she was subject to ‘constant bullying’ by her colleagues at The Times who disagreed with her views. She wrote that colleagues have called her a Nazi and racist and that she was ‘demeaned on company-wide Slack channels.’”

abari 11

“Slack” software is a collaboration hub that can replace email to help you and your team work together seamlessly. It’s designed to support the way people naturally work together, so you can collaborate with people online as efficiently as you do face-to-face.  A “Slack” workspace is made up of channels, where team members can communicate and work together.

‘“There, some coworkers insisted I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name,’ Weiss wrote. ‘Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action.  They never are.’”

abari 10

Is it just me?

Doesn’t anyone else see the fascist nature of these people?

It can’t be just me, right?

You do see it too, don’t you?

“Eileen Murphy, a spokesperson for The Times, did not respond to the specifics of Weiss’ resignation letter.”

Of course not.

“But Murphy said, ‘We’re committed to fostering an environment of honest, searching and empathetic dialogue between colleagues, one where mutual respect is required of all.’”

Nice statement, Eileen.  Too bad it isn’t true.

abari 8

abari 5

Brian Flood of Fox News adds, ‘“What this journalist has done is not just to indict, but convict The New York Times of outright censorship,’ Media Research Center founder Brent Bozell told Fox News. ‘If it doesn’t send shockwaves through the world of journalism, it’s because the world of journalism no longer has ethics.”’

BINGO!

“Weiss published the resignation letter she sent to Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger on her personal website, saying, ‘Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.’”

And you not even a true centrist, Ms. Weiss. You may be a centrist, in a liberal sense, but not a true centrist.

A true “centrist,” these days, is defined as a person who isn’t smart enough to stand up for America, or just too lazy to help destroy her.

“DePauw University professor and media critic Jeffrey McCall told Fox News that Weiss’ letter ‘provides yet another window to the mindset of journalistic ideology and advocacy’ at The Times.”

“While some were shocked by Weiss’ scathing letter, Cornell Law School professor and media critic William A. Jacobson feels anyone paying attention to ‘the Gray Lady’ [The New York Times] should have known the paper has a lefty agenda.”

“The Gray Lady” has a pimp these days…, and she’s a hot mess.

‘“Liberalism at the NY Times is illiberal and intolerant.  Water also is wet. Bari Weiss confirms what conservatives already knew, but liberals like Weiss previously refused to see,’ Jacobson told Fox News. ‘The vicious social justice warfare culture has moved from campus to newsrooms, and there is no place for old-fashioned liberals like Weiss.’”

Hmmm.  Sucks to be an “old fashioned liberal” these days, I guess.

Just to put The Times’ liberalism into perspective, The New York Times has not endorsed a republican for president since 1956!

That’s not once in the last 64 years!

That’s not once in the last 16 presidential elections!

That last endorsement in 1956 was for the incumbent, then President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

That includes endorsing Walter Mondale over President Ronald Reagan in 1984.  An election that Ronald Reagan won with 58.8% of the popular vote, while winning 49 of the 50 states, the only holdout being Mondale’s home state of Minnesota, and the District of Columbia, of course.

 

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 if 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.

We’re all entitled to our opinions.  I value yours and your feedback as well.

I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

#METOOBUTNOTYOU

According to Brian Flood of Fox News, “The New York Times published a polarizing op-ed on Wednesday by a feminist author who plans to vote for Joe Biden despite believing that he has committed sexual assault, all because she can’t stand President Trump.”

adespite 7

“Author Linda Hirshman penned the piece headlined, ‘I Believe Tara Reade. I’m Voting for Joe Biden Anyway.’ The author began by declaring she believes Tara Reade, who has accused presumptive presidential nominee Joe Biden of sexual assault.”

adespite 1

‘“Let’s be clear: I believe Tara Reade,’ Hirshman wrote.”

‘“Democratic primary voters knew all about Mr. Biden’s membership in that boys’ club when there was still time to pick someone else. Alas,’ Hirshman wrote. ‘So, what’s a girl to do now?’”

A “girl?”

An old, two-faced, traitor to her gender, would be more like it.

adespite 4

I mean…, what’s a boy to do when he’s staring this kind of hypocrisy and the ugliest kind of disingenuousness that politics has to share, right in the face?

“The liberal author of ‘Reckoning: The Epic Battle Against Sexual Abuse and Harassment’ explained that discounting Reade’s claims, which she notes have ‘four corroborating witnesses,’ would be ‘nonsense.’”

adespite 2

adespite 5

Thank you.  On this account, she’s absolutely right.

‘“So, stop playing gotcha with the female supporters of Mr. Biden or the #MeToo movement, making them lie to the camera — or perhaps to themselves — about doubting her to justify their votes,’ Hirshman wrote.”

Oh, it’s definitely the “lying to themselves” option.

adespite 3

And just for your information, Ms. Hirshman…, there has officially ceased to be a #METOO movement.

The #METOO movement has now been positively identified as the liberal sham that it is.

People should only mention #METOO in the future if they are looking for a laugh.

‘“I’ll take one for the team. I believe Ms. Reade, and I’ll vote for Mr. Biden [Creepy Joe] this fall.’”

adespite 14

adespite 16

You just go ahead and “take one” for that “team” of yours, Linda.

And what “team” would that exactly be by the way?

The Los Angeles Liars?

The Hollywood Hypocrites?

The Philadelphia Phonys?

How about the Las Vegas Losers?

Or the Frisco Fake Feminists?

Or maybe the Detroit Dumocrats?

nytimes.com wrote on Twitter, “Hirshman admitted the choice would be difficult, noting she’s been a champion of women’s equality since 1963.”

Ya, and Creepy Joe has said he’s been “a champion of women’s equality” for even longer than that!

adespite 9

Actions prove who someone IS.  Words just prove who they WANT to be.

adespite 13

adespite 10

“The Times opinion piece goes on to explain that Biden is most likely going to be the Democratic nominee regardless of Reade’s claims, and she wants a Democrat in the White House because of her loathing of President Trump.”

adespite 17

‘“Biden, and the Democrats he may carry with him into government, are likely to do more good for women and the nation than his competition, the worst president in the history of the Republic,’ she wrote.”

adespite 8

‘“Compared with the good Mr. Biden can do, the cost of dismissing Tara Reade – and, worse, weakening the voices of future survivors – is worth it.’”

adespite 15

That is sooooo pathetic, Hirshman…, sooooo pathetic.

“Hirshman then admitted she would sacrifice Reade for the ‘good of many.’”

adespite 18

Oh, how noble of you, Ms. Hirshman!

Here some tweets on the whole matter:

@ellie bufkin Tweeted, “BREAKING: Conservative hunch that Democrats were hypocrites all along is proven to be incredibly true.”

This was much more than a hunch, Ellie.  Democrats being hypocrites was determined to be the case many years ago.  Where you been?

Jeffrey St. Clair, @JSCCounterPunch, Tweted, “That’s a wrap…for #Metoo feminism.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/opinion/tara-reade-joe-biden-vote.html?referringSource=articleShare …”

Steve Milloy, @JunkScience, Tweeted, “Mr. Biden, and the Democrats he may carry into government, are likely to do more good for women and the nation than his competition…, so Democrat men now have carte blanche to sexually abuse women b/c they will push the feminist agenda? Twisted.”

Dave Hansen, @Tree skier, Tweted, “#Metoomovement is well and truly dead.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/opinion/tara-reade-joe-biden-vote.html …#MeTooUnlessItsBiden”

Kyle Orton, @KyleWOrton, Tweeted, “Quite difficult to convey how stunningly grotesque this is. It doesn’t even deserve the ‘points for honesty’ response some people have given it. It’s pure partisan hackery. Nobody who takes sexual violence seriously could speak like this.”

I totally agree, Kyle…, and that’s my point exactly.

adespite 11

adespite 12

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 if 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.

 

 

The most important election of our lifetimes…, WAS THE LAST ONE!

Matt Flegenheimer for The New York Times asks, “What if the Most Important Election of Our Lifetimes Was the Last One?”

aimelect 1

My response to him would be the last election, in 2016, was definitely the most important election of our lifetimes.

The election of 2016 showed that the people who really care about our country could still win a national election, regardless of the blatant liberal propaganda media and the millions of fraudulent votes fabricated by the liberal democrats.

The election of 2016 put an end to the appeasement of Muslim terrorists and those who support them.

The election of 2016 put an end to the wholesale shipment of American jobs overseas.

The election of 2016 put an end to the allowance of virtually every foreign country taking advantage of us via unfair trade agreements and policies.

The election of 2016 ended our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

The election of 2016 brought manufacturing back to America, most importantly of steel, which was a national defense concern.

The election of 2016 has put a finger in the dyke of the seemingly never ending leak of illegal and dangerous immigrants into our country.

The election of 2016 has brought to light many abuses perpetrated by the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA and more, which would have never even been known had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election.

The election of 2016 forced the liberal propaganda, fake news media to finally, and unquestionably, show themselves for who they are…, an arm of the democrat party, an enemy of our country an enemy of the American people.

The election of 2016 short circuited the unconstitutional UN-Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare, and the attempted government takeover of our private healthcare system.

The election of 2016 brought long awaited reforms which improved the performance of the VA system and the overall treatment of our veterans.

The election of 2016 resulted in the rebuilding and upgrading of our military across the board.

The election of 2016 also resulted in the slashing of thousands and thousands of suffocating and obstructing federal regulations.

Other than that, the election of 2016 wasn’t important at all!

Flegenheimer continues, “Politics runs on superlative: the best plan, the biggest rally, the most votes.”

“And one trope [a figurative or metaphorical use of a word or expression] has proved most enduring of all, repeated each campaign season with well-practiced conviction.”

Hold on a minute.

What is it with these “reporters” from The Times and The Post?  Why do they always feel the need to interject some word that no one ever uses?

I’m sure Flegenheimer spent quite a bit of time coming up with that “elitist word of the day.”

Anyway…, back to the one “figurative or metaphorical use of a word or expression which has proved most enduring of all, and repeated each campaign season with well-practiced conviction.”

‘“This is the most important election of our lifetimes,’ Bernie Sanders said of 2020 last month.”

‘“The most important election of our lives,’ Pete Buttigieg agreed in February.”

‘“Maybe the most important election,’ Joe Biden ruled last year, hedging slightly, ‘no matter how young or old you are.’”

“Maybe. But what if they’re wrong this time? What if the other clichés — of dice cast and Rubicons [defining moments] crossed [there we go again] — have finally overwritten this one? [I actually think he meant to say ‘dies cast.’]”

aimelect 4

“What if the most important election of our lifetimes happened already?”

“[President] Trump is in charge during a generational emergency, briefing the nation on life and death with an eye toward television ratings and miracle cures. It can feel unlikely that any choice in 2020 will be as consequential as the fact that he won in the first place.”

“Another Democratic primary day passed on Tuesday, this one in Wisconsin, and with it another reminder of the present limits of presidential politics, of how large the last decision looms and how distant the next one seems.”

Regarding the 2016 election, ‘“It was the rejection of business as usual,’ said Rebecca Kirszner Katz, a progressive Democratic strategist. ‘And that includes any form of competent governing.’”

The word “competent” being a matter of opinion, of course.

To be sure the 2016 election was “the rejection of business as usual.” And if you believe career establishment politicians and anti-American policies represent competency, then Ms. Kirszner Katz is your girl.

“Recent weeks have at once exposed the messiness of the federal virus response and the consistency of [President] Trump’s rampaging leadership instincts, delivering a moment that has at last closed the gap between the permanent chaos of his White House, a once-remote sideshow for many Americans, and the daily upheaval in their own lives.”

Okay, Mr. Flegenheimer, I just have to dissect this last remark.

“The messiness of the federal virus response?”

At least we have a federal response!

And what is “messy” about it?  We have daily, transparent, briefings from The President and his team, and plan of action that’s endorsed by the Center for Disease Control (CDC).

What kind of “response” was put together by any other president in the last 50+ years regarding a “response” to a potentially dangerous virus?

Go ahead Flegenheimer…, talk amongst your friends…, I’ll wait.

I hate to interrupt, but…

Don’t you recall other presidents banning travel from foreign countries?

Don’t you recall other presidents ordering that people be quarantined before reentering our country?

Don’t you recall other presidents shutting down educational systems across the country in order to guard against the spread of a virus?

Don’t you recall other presidents ordering all non-essential business be suspended and all personal interactions be limited in order to guard against the spread of a virus?

NO, OF COURSE YOU DON’T, Flegenheimer!

YOU DON’T RECALL ANY OTHER PRESIDENTS DOING ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T DO ANYTHING…, BESIDES GIVE US ALL A BUNCH OF MEANINGLESS LIP SERVICE!

aimelect 2

Please let me remind you, Flegenheimer, since you seem to be factually challenged…,

… we currently have seen 1.9 million coronavirus cases worldwide, resulting in 120,500 deaths.

… we currently have seen 555,000 cases in the United States, resulting in 21,900 deaths.

aimelect 9

… in 2009, the H1N1 virus, or the Swine Flu, effected a billion people worldwide, with 284,000 estimated fatalities.  How come our country wasn’t shut down for this outbreak, President Obama?  Sleepy Joe Biden?  Anybody?

… in 2003 we had the SARS virus.

… in 1999 we had the West Nile Virus.

… in 1968 we had the H3N2 virus, or the Hong Kong Flu, where 33,800 people died in the U.S.

… and in 1957 over a million people died from the Asian Flu worldwide, while 116,000 died in the United States.

When have we cancelled, closed, or shut down anything before because of a virus?

The correct answer is NEVER.

aimelect 10

Getting back to your remark…, “[President] Trump’s rampaging leadership instincts,” could also be referred to as decisive, informed leadership, which has saved tens of thousands of lives.

And then you talk about “a moment that has at last closed the gap between the permanent chaos of his White House, a once-remote sideshow for many Americans, and the daily upheaval in their own lives.”

May I suggest that any “chaos” in the White House, if there is any, is instigated and nurtured by you and your friends in the liberal propaganda, fake news media, and your democrat friends.

aimelect 5

aimelect 6

‘“What do you have to lose?’ [President] Trump famously asked black voters in 2016, suggesting he was a risk worth taking. He has repeated the question more recently in a new context: to encourage stricken citizens, in defiance of expert opinion, to try an anti-malarial drug to combat the coronavirus.”

Again, aiding you in your “factual challengedness,” Mr. Flegenheimer, the drug you’re referring to is hydroxychloroquine, and it has been proven to be quite effective in many cases.  In fact, many have given the drug credit for saving their lives.

“Of course, the answer to [President] Trump’s initial prompt has always been evident to most Democrats. At stake were health care plans, immigration policies, a generation of court seats and now, they say, many lives that would not have been lost to the coronavirus under more capable executive stewardship.”

And, of course, “the answer” to your answer is that your answer is all politically motivated anti-Trump propaganda and fake news.

‘“I believe history will look back on four years of this president and all he embraces as an aberrant moment in time,’ Biden said in his announcement video last year. ‘But if we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation.’”

Only in a positive way, Sleepy Joe…, only in a positive way.

aimelect 8

Oh, and by the way, Sleepy Joe, wasn’t it you who called President Trump a “xenophobe” [a person having a dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries] for blocking any travel from China at the onset of the outbreak, and probably saving tens of thousands of American lives as a result?

aimelect 3

Yes…, it was you Sleepy Joe…, don’t be shy!

‘“The striking thing about the first term is how much damage he was able to inflict,’ said Robert [the third] Reich, a former labor secretary under Bill Clinton who endorsed Sanders in the primary. ‘At the margin, he probably could do more with two terms, and I wouldn’t wish that on this nation. But he’s already done a huge amount.’”

Reich’s level of confusion here is both stunning and impressive.

How could a former labor secretary describe President Trump’s accomplishments regarding the lowest unemployment rates across the board, in history, as “damage?”

“In less trying times, Biden’s record on the subject had been consistent.”

Yes…, consistently a bunch of hot air.

‘“The most important election you’ve ever been part of,’ he told voters in 2018, rallying for midterm candidates.”

‘“The most important election,’ he said in 2016, stumping for Hillary Clinton, ‘in any of your lives.’”

Yeah…, we know…, it’s like, “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.  Period.  If you like your plan you can keep your plan.  Period.”

They’re all just disingenuous words spouting out of an establishment politician’s mouth for the sake of those ignorant enough to believe them.

WINNING!

 

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 if 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.

 

GOP slammed by Nobel-Winning Economist, Paul Krugman.

How this guy has any credibility left, or a job for that matter, is beyond me.

adeficit 7

I used to think “Nobel-Winning” actually meant something until Barack Obama and this guy won one.

adeficit 5

“This guy” being “Economist” Paul Krugman…, and I use the term “economist” VERY loosely.

Krugman hasn’t been remotely close to being right about anything he’s said regarding the economy in like forever.

adeficit 3

That’s probably because he’s more interested in spreading desired liberal propaganda economic narratives rather than actually analyzing our real economy.

Lee Moran, of the ever disgusting HuffPost, reports that, “Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman blasted the GOP [The Grand Old Party, or Republicans] for ‘the most cynical policy reversal of modern times,’ and warned their bold duplicity may help President Donald Trump secure a second term in office.”

Oh…, I can’t wait…, this should be interesting!

adeficit 6

“Fake Newsers” are always more than happy to regurgitate other fake news propaganda…, no matter how hypocritical or idiotic it is.

“In his latest column for The New York Times [Guaranteeing the fakeness of it!], Krugman called out the ‘broader pattern of breathtaking fiscal hypocrisy, in which the G.O.P. went from insisting that federal debt posed an existential threat under Obama to complete indifference to budget deficits under Trump.’”

‘“This 180-degree turn is, as far as I can tell, the most cynical policy reversal of modern times,’ he argued.”

How dare anyone in politics change their mind, right Paul?!

“Krugman predicted ‘this cynicism may win Trump the election’ because ‘what’s driving the U.S. economy now is the very deficit spending Republicans pretended to be horrified by during the Obama years.’”

Ok…, wait…, this is too good!

What Mr. Krugman is saying is President Trump may win re-election because he and the republicans have changed their position on the federal deficit, and they have now chosen to ignore it like the democrats have been doing!

That’s beautiful.

adeficit 2

It’s not fair!  You can’t be irresponsible about the federal deficit…, that’s our job!

In all fairness to President Trump, he didn’t run particularly on reducing the federal deficit, and he never pretended to be overly concerned about it.

And those fiscally conservative republicans are still out there…, they’re just not putting up much of a fight right now.

Being responsible with the nation’s money is just not a winning argument these days.

So, like they say…, “when in Rome, do as the Romans do,” and “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.”

Being responsible sucks!

Chaaaaarge it!

adeficit 8

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.

 

Russian interference?!  Did you say “Russian interference” again?!  You did, you did say “Russian interference” again?! 

Is the fake news, liberal propaganda, really serious about this…, again?!

Really?!

It’s only February!

aelect 2

Please don’t tell me we are going to have to listen to this fairy tale garbage again for the next 9 months, leading up to the November election.

Please!

aelect 3

And then after President Trump wins it’ll be déjà vu all over again as well with this Russian crap…, again.

I guess our only hope is that CNN and MSNBC will have been completely discredited by that time and shut down.

According to Jim Acosta, Zachary Cohen, Dana Bash, Jeremy Herb, Jake Tapper, Alex Marquardt, Paul LeBlanc, Vivian Salama and Kaitlan Collins of CNN, “Russia is looking to help Trump win in 2020, election security official told lawmakers.”

aelect 4

Is there anyone at CNN who didn’t contribute to this piece of liberal propaganda?

Just sayin’!

“Washington (CNN) – The intelligence community’s top election security official delivered a briefing to lawmakers last week warning them that the intelligence community believes Russia is already taking steps to interfere in the 2020 election with the goal of helping President Donald Trump win, three sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.”

Okay, people…, time out.

Let’s stop for a minute and think about this.

Let’s stop for a minute and use our brains.

aelect 18

First, the fact that Russia wants to mess with our election is a given.  No news there at all.

But second…, you’re telling me that Russia wants to help President Trump get re-elected?

The Russians want to help the same President Trump who has the U.S.’s economy roaring?

The Russians want to help the same President Trump who has rebuilt America’s military to the strongest it’s been in our history and the strongest currently in the world?

The Russians want to help the same President Trump who has overseen the U.S. become oil independent from the Middle East?

The Russians want to help the same President Trump who has established a new branch of our military, The Space Force, which has been created to guarantee the U.S. has dominance in space over countries like Russia and China?

The Russians want to help the same President Trump who has placed embargos and other economic restrictions on them and many of their “friends” around the world?

That President Trump?

That’s the President Trump “The intelligence community’s top election security official” is talking about?

aelect 17

Excuse me Ms. “The intelligence community’s top election security official” if I call you out for what you obviously are…, just another liar and “deep state” tool who is being used to spread anti-Trump propaganda.

“Last week’s briefing, led by election security official Shelby Pierson and first reported by The New York Times, addressed the overall picture of Russia’s efforts, including hacking, weaponizing social media and attacks on election infrastructure, one of the sources said.”

aelect 1

“The briefers said Russia does favor Trump, but that helping Trump wasn’t the only thing they were trying to do as it was also designed to raise questions about the integrity of the elections process, the source added.”

And of course the democrats want to lay the groundwork about the “integrity of the election process” in order cover their butts and fit their narrative after the democrats get annihilated in the 2020 presidential and congressional elections.

Please refer to my section above again as to why the Russians would, of course, favor President Trump.

Acosta, Cohen, Bash and Herb of CNN continue, “Russia’s interference in the 2016 election — which the US intelligence community believes was aimed at boosting Trump’s candidacy and hurting his opponent, Hillary Clinton — led to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. The prospect of interference in 2020 will further test US defenses against foreign meddling, which Trump has repeatedly downplayed as he has dismissed any suggestion that Kremlin influence played a role in his election.”

aelect 14

Okay…, please, let’s take another time out here.

I’m sorry, but wasn’t the “Russian collusion hoax” been put to bed?

aelect 11

Wasn’t the fraudulently initiated Mueller investigation completed, after wasting two years of our time and coming up with NOTHING regarding President Trump and “Russian collusion?”

aelect 7

aelect 9

aelect 8

And again…, I’m sorry but wasn’t it President Obama who was aware of this “Russian election interference” in 2015 and 2016 but did nothing about it?

Wasn’t it President Obama and his deep state minions who were aware of this “Russian election interference” in 2015 and 2016 and failed to inform candidate Trump about it, but rather used it as an excuse to spy on his campaign and then frame him with the “Russian collusion hoax?”

Obama

Ha!  It’s funny how I never hear that mentioned by any of our “friends” in the fake news, liberal propaganda media.

Again…, let’s take a moment and use our brains here.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to believe that the Russians would be more inclined to “help” the democrats’ front runner, Bernie Sanders?

According to Joseph Simonson of The Washington Examiner, Bernie Sanders has been quoted as saying, ‘“I don’t mind people calling me a communist.’”

Hmmm…, well, that’s interesting.

“Although Sanders has refrained from self-identifying as a communist, his ties with far-left Marxist groups go back decades.”

Hmmm…, well, that’s interesting as well.

aelect 5

“The Washington Examiner reported last May on his ties with far-left political parties such as the Socialist Workers Party [SWP]. During his time as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, he littered his office with newspapers and pamphlets from revolutionary organizations.”

The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) is known as the communist party in the United States.

“In 1980 and 1984, Sanders endorsed SWP presidential candidates Andrew Pulley and Mel Mason. Their presidential platforms included promises to dismantle the entire U.S. military and nationalize most industries.”

Hmmm…, wouldn’t these be things Russia would be excited about getting behind as opposed to President Trump’s accomplishments and policies?

“Sanders was later investigated by the FBI concerning his ties to the SWP, although charges were never brought.”

aelect 20

As we know, charges are never brought against liberals, democrats, socialists and communists…, only conservatives.

And on a final note, according to Michael Kranish of The Washington Post, “The just-married socialist mayor from Vermont was on what he called “a very strange honeymoon,” an official 10-day [in 1988] visit to the communist country [Russia], and he was enthralled with the hospitality and the lessons that could be brought home.”

Just “enthralled!”

“The trip garnered brief mention in the 2016 presidential campaign, but earlier this year, a video from a Vermont community television station was posted online that showed a few minutes of Sanders’s unlikely celebration with the Soviets.”

“As he stood on Soviet soil, Sanders, then 46 years old, criticized the cost of housing and health care in the United States, while lauding the lower prices — but not the quality — of that available in the Soviet Union. Then, at a banquet attended by about 100 people, Sanders blasted the way the United States had intervened in other countries.”

“Sanders declined to be interviewed for this report.”

You don’t say?

I’m sure the fake news media will eventually make a Russia-Bernie connection in an effort to railroad Bernie out of their nomination process as well.

The liberal establishment is so predictably pathetic it’s laughable.

So, they’re going to be telling us the Russians are supporting both Bernie AND President Trump?

Like I said…, laughable and unbelievably shameless.

WINNING!

aelect 13

aelect 15

aelect 16

 

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

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

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

The answer is a paralyzed hot mess.

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

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

anyt 14

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

“Trigger?”

“Political overtones?”

anyt 5

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

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

anyt 13

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

Wait…, what?

The New York Times “poo-pooed?”

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

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

anyt 4

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

anyt 1

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

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

Oh really?

THIS is a generational divide of our culture?

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

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

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

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

anyt 2

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

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

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

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

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

anyt 6

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

anyt 12

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

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

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

anyt 9

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

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

anyt 11

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

anyt 10

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

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

Of course not.

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

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

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

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

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

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

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

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

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

So what exactly are we talking about here?

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

fakenyt 7

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

Those damn airplanes!

They should all be banned!

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

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

“Edited for clarity,” huh?

fakenyt 6

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

fakenyt 8

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

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

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

fakenyt 1

fakenyt 2

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

Like 977 people closer.

Idiot.

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

fakenyt 3

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

And they probably won’t respond.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

 

C’mon New York Times!  You’re letting the news get in the way of the party line propaganda!

Gerren Keith Gaynor of Fox News reports that, “New York Times headline of Trump’s remarks on mass shootings ignites backlash.”

“A New York Times headline about President Trump’s remarks on the recent mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton drew condemnation online– including some Democratic presidential candidates– and was subsequently changed late Monday.”

nyt 11

They changed their headline?

Wow!  That never happens.  That headline must have been pretty vile or grossly inaccurate.

What exactly was the headline?

“The newspaper summarized Trump’s comments, in which he denounced hate and white supremacy, with the headline “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism” on the front page of its first edition.”

Huh?

That was the headline they were forced to change?

That headline was completely accurate and unbiased.  That was exactly what occurred.  President Trump urged for unity against racism, denouncing hate and white supremacy groups.

And therein lies the problem.

How can the democrats’ fairy tale narrative of The President being a racist be true if he is reported as being against racism and denouncing hate and white supremacy groups?

C’mon New York Times!

Get with the program!

Did you forget you’re a propaganda rag that works in concert with the democrats?!

nyt 8

It seems that in a moment of weakness you actually reported “the news” there.

Shame on you!

“A photograph of Tuesday’s first edition was tweeted out by journalist Nate Silver Monday night and was quickly slammed by critics who accused The Gray Lady of inaccurately representing Trump’s comments.”

“The Gray Lady?”

More like “Gray Lady Down!”

nyt 9

“Some Twitter users threatened to cancel their subscriptions and urged others to do the same.”

Really?!

Did you know that “some twitter users” can be found to be doing virtually anything?

Anyway…, I digress.

‘“I canceled my subscription,’ tweeted author and CNN contributor Joan Walsh, adding, ‘I can’t keep rewarding such awful news judgement.’”

Let’s get one thing clear…, Joan Walsh is a liar.  She didn’t cancel anything.  And by “awful news judgment” she means diverting from the “fake news,” liberal narrative.  She is associated with CNN after all.

nyt 4

“Prominent Democrats in Washington also took aim at the Times, including New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.”

‘“Let this front page serve as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by – and often relies upon – the cowardice of mainstream institutions,’ the freshman congresswoman tweeted.”

What?

Please explain to me how “white supremacy is aided” by reporting that The President is calling for unity against racism and white supremacy groups?

nyt 3

These democrats are sooo confused and sooo disingenuous that it is almost beyond commenting on.

nyt 1

“Presidential candidates, many of whom blamed Trump’s rhetoric for the El Paso, Texas, shooting that left at least 22 dead, also decried the headline.”

“New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand tweeted, ‘That’s not what happened.’”

No, Kirsten…, that IS exactly what happened.

‘“Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do,’ wrote Sen. Cory Booker.”

Thank you for your take on the matter “Spartacus!”

I believe we all can “do better…,” including you Cory.

“A photograph of the Times’ second edition of the front page hours later revealed that the headline had been changed to ‘Assailing Hate but Not Guns.’ Its website also showed a similar headline: ‘Trump Condemns Bigotry but Doesn’t Call for Major New Guns Laws.’”

nyt 6

I’m surprised these new headlines were even deemed acceptable.

There is a negative twist to them now, but there is still a bit of positivity there about The President.

“Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy acknowledged in a statement the original headline was problematic.”

“Problematic?”

The headline was “problematic,” but it wasn’t inaccurate, huh?

‘“The original headline was flawed and was changed for all editions of the paper following the first edition,’ the statement read. ‘The headline in question never appeared online, only in the first print edition.’”

The headline was “problematic” and “flawed,” but it wasn’t inaccurate?

Gee…, that reaction to the original headline would seem to be a metaphor for the democrats and their co-conspirators, the mainstream media!

“Problematic” and “flawed.”

nyt 7

nyt 2

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

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.

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑