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.

 

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.

 

“Freedom of the Press” does not mean “the press” has the freedom to break the law!

“The swamp,” or “the deep state,” if you prefer calling it that, are always more than happy to help “the cause” by providing otherwise classified information, making available personal and protected information, and leaking anything else that is required to the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media.”

In this case, we have a person, or people, from the IRS, who have provided some of President Trump’s tax return information to The “failing” New York Times.

trump tax 6

According to Hans A. von Spakovsky, a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, for Fox News, “NY Times publication of Trump tax information violates his legal right to confidentiality.”

trump tax 3

“The New York Times no doubt considers it quite a coup to have obtained and published President Trump’s tax return information from 1985 to 1994.  But doing so violated President Trump’s right under federal law to the confidentiality of his tax returns.”

Just a minor consideration, in their eyes, I’m sure.

trump tax 1

“The Times – which reported on Trump’s businesses…has no more right to Trump’s tax returns than it has to mine or those of any of you reading these words.”

I keep having to remind all of these people that all of these “rights” and “laws” of protection only apply to card carrying members of “the swamp;” conservatives and republicans and all the rest of us peasants operate at the mercy of democrats and “the deep state.”

“Confidentiality, as the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in 1991 in U.S. v. Richey, is essential to ‘maintaining a workable tax system.’”

Hmmm…, the Ninth Circuit Court?  Isn’t that the court out on the left coast that is constantly trying to legislate from the bench?

I guarantee you that the “U.S. v. Richey” case either protected a liberal or attacked a conservative.

“Taxpayer privacy is ‘fundamental to a tax system that relies on self-reporting’ since it protects ‘sensitive or otherwise personal information,’ said then-Judge (now Supreme Court Justice) Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1986 in another case when she served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.”

Hmmm…, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia?  The most liberal court in the land; second only to the Ninth Circuit Court we mentioned previously.

RBG of course was referring to the privacy of democrats and liberals at the time, I’m sure, and not conservatives or republicans.

“Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of The New York Times story, tax returns themselves, as well as tax return information such as these IRS transcripts (which are a summary of the tax returns), are protected from disclosure by federal law.”

“Federal law – 26 U.S.C. §7213(a) (1) – makes it a felony for any federal employee to disclose tax returns or “return information.” Infractions are punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine as high as $250,000 under the Alternative Fines Act (18 U.S.C. §3571).”

“According to the newspaper, it did not actually obtain Trump’s tax returns but ‘printouts from his official Internal Revenue Service tax transcripts, with the figures from his federal tax form, the 1040, from someone who had legal access to them.’”

Yes…, THEY (Meaning a liberal IRS confidant; probably Lois Lerner’s brother or sister!) had legal access to them.  But THEY did not have the rights to give others access to them.

trump tax 9

trump tax 10

trump tax 8

“Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of The New York Times story, tax returns themselves, as well as tax return information such as these IRS transcripts (which are a summary of the tax returns), are protected from disclosure by federal law. If the newspaper obtained this information from an employee of the IRS, that employee will be in big trouble if he or she is identified.”

“Could the editors and reporters at the New York Times be prosecuted for publishing this information?”

“Section (a)(3) of the law makes it a felony for ANY PERSON who receives an illegally disclosed tax return or return information to publish that return or that information. But it’s unknown if the bar on publication by a media organization could survive a First Amendment challenge.”

I believe the words “ANY PERSON” would mean “ANY PERSON,” but that’s just me!

“Now the interests of protecting the privacy of taxpayers warrants the opening of a government investigation to find the leaker who provided the Trump tax information to The New York Times.”

YES!  Bravo!

“The IRS and the U.S. Justice Department should investigate how this disclosure happened, find out who did it, and prosecute anyone who violated the law.”

Again…, YES!  Bravissimo!

Why do these people seemingly do whatever they want and always get away with it?  It’s way past time that we start to hold these government weasels accountable.

trump tax 4

trump tax 5

DRAIN THE SWAMP!

DRAIN THE SWAMP!

 

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.

My reaction to some recent headlines about the Electoral College, AOC and the 22nd Amendment, DNC Chair calls Republican lawmakers “cowardly,” Joe Biden’s behavior with women, and did the NY Times and The Washington Post help elect President Trump!?

There are so many topics I’d like to offer my insight on, but so little time!

Welcome to my first crack at the “MrEricksonRules headline buffet line!”

Pick your favorite(s) or have some of each.  It’s totally up to you.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

Senate democrats introduce measure to abolish Electoral College.

“Would election by popular vote be better than the Electoral College?”

“A group of Democratic senators on Tuesday introduced a measure to do away with the Electoral College, picking up on a talking point that has caught fire in the 2020 Democratic presidential field.”

“According to NBC News: ‘Leading Democratic senators are expected to introduce a constitutional amendment Tuesday to abolish the Electoral College, adding momentum to a long-shot idea that has been gaining steam among 2020 presidential candidates.’”

“…changing the Constitution is seen as virtually impossible today. A constitutional amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds supermajority in both the House (about 290 votes) and Senate (67 votes) and requires ratification by 38 states.”

As is usually the case with the democrat party, what we have here is either disingenuous political grandstanding, uninformed ignorance, or a combination of the two.  I’m going to give them some credit and say it’s disingenuous political grandstanding for the most part, since actually amending the Constitution would never happen, mostly due to the requirement of having 38 states go along with it.

So…, in the grand scheme of things, it’s kind of like “The Green New Deal,” a bunch of noise that ain’t never going to happen.

Andrew O’Reilly of Fox News contributed.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Liz Cheney disagree over knowledge of 22nd Amendment, Constitution.

“[Liz] Cheney, R-WY, took issue with a comment [Alexandria] Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, made during a recent MSNBC town hall event in which the freshman congresswoman talked about Democrats being in control of Congress in the 1930s and 1940s.”

‘“When our party was boldest, the time of the New Deal, the Great Society, the Civil Rights Act and so on, we had, and carried, supermajorities in the House, in the Senate. We carried the presidency,’ she told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes.”

‘“They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure (President Franklin D.) Roosevelt did not get reelected,’ Ocasio-Cortez continued.”

“In response to Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks, Cheney tweeted: ‘We knew the Democrats let dead people vote. According to AOC, they can run for president too!’”

“The New Yorker then fired off her own response. ‘Hey Rep. Cheney, I see from your dead people comment that you get your news from Facebook memes, but the National Constitution Center + Newsweek are just two of many places where you can clarify your misunderstanding of the history of the 22nd Amendment,’ she wrote.”

“Roosevelt died while in office in 1945 and the 22nd Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1947.  The Amendment reads, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some of other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

I think we can safely score this:

Representative Liz Cheney………..ONE

Representative Ocasio-Cortez…….ZERO

Kathleen Joyce of Fox News contributed.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

DNC Chair Tom Perez calls Republican lawmakers “cowardly,” says they will be “judged harshly” by history

“Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez launched a stunning attack on Republican lawmakers, saying history will “judge” them for supporting President Trump.”

What’s so “stunning” about that?  I hear much worse on a daily basis directed at President Trump, republicans and various conservatives.

‘“The reason why we [Democrats] are winning, and we won at scale in 2018, is because our message is clear. Our message was: we are the ones who actually have your back on the issues that really matter. Healthcare, education. He said he had your back, but actually he had a knife in your back,’ Perez said.”

The truth is the democrats under performed in the 2018 midterms, and by any measure we can say the democrats do not “have our back.”  The democrats, most recently led by Barack Obama, sold America and Americans out.  They gave away our jobs, our wealth, our respect around the world, and our American soul.

“The DNC chair continued that President Trump found success in 2016 by putting ‘fear on the ballot,’ and that Republican lawmakers who have supported his policies over the last three years are ‘cowards’ who have allowed damage to be done to their part.”

That’s a good one Tom!  The democrats are historically the party of fear.  How many times have we heard “the republicans will gut social security,” due to the republicans, millions will die without healthcare, our children will starve and grandma will be left out on the street!?

We didn’t need President Trump to “put fear on the ballot” in 2016, we were all scared already that our country was going down the drain. And rightly so.

‘“I mean, history will not only judge Donald Trump harshly. It will judge Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and all the other cowards who refused to stand up to this president and allowed the party of Lincoln to die. They will be judged harshly because whatever he says goes right now.’”

I feel more correctly, “history” will judge these times as the times of the great liberal lies.  The times of liberal propaganda and the times of the corrupt and biased media who backed them up rather than do their jobs as watchdogs for We the People.

Anna Hopkins of Fox News contributed.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

Pelosi: Biden didn’t know “the world we’re in now.”

“House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi is the most high-profile Democrat to come to the defense of former Vice President Joe Biden’s ‘affectionate demeanor,’ Peter Doocy reports from Washington.”

Ha! “Affectionate demeanor!?”  Is that what we’re calling “Uncle Joe’s” creepy behavior now?

And according to Politico (a news journalism company), “Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that she does not think the allegations against Joe Biden of unwelcome contact are disqualifying for a 2020 run, but that the former vice president should be more aware of others’ personal space. ‘I don’t think it’s disqualifying,’ Pelosi said… ‘He has to understand in the world that we’re in now that people’s space is important to them, and what’s important is how they receive it and not necessarily how you intended it.’ … Pelosi pushed back against the tone of former vice president’s apologies. ‘It is how it’s received, so to say, ‘I’m sorry that you were offended’ is not an apology,’ the California Democrat said. ‘‘I’m sorry I invaded your space,’ but not, ‘I’m sorry you were offended.’ What’s that? That’s not accepting the fact that people think differently about communication.’”

I’m a little confused.  Is she coming to Joe’s defense or is she scolding him?

National Public Radio (NPR) noted, “On the most obvious level, complaints of this kind renew the criticism of Biden’s past performance on issues affecting women and people of color, the two constituencies likely to matter most in choosing the next Democratic nominee.”

As usual with the democrats, us poor white guys are treated like second class citizens.

“Perceptions of Biden as ‘old school’ or ‘old fashioned’ are not just liabilities to be shed. They are also the basis of his appeal to many older, white, working-class Democrats and independents.”

The democrat party can say what they want about the new breed of democrat-socialists out there; Joe Biden leads in the polls for president, and he hasn’t even officially declared yet!

“Biden’s advisers believe coverage of allegations of inappropriate behavior is being stoked by rival Democrats…”

No kidding.

That basically leaves one guy…, and I can hear ‘em now, Bernie, Bernie, Bernie.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

New York Post: How the New York Times, Washington Post helped get Trump elected.

“If either paper had done the sort of digging on Hillary Clinton that they did on Trump, then Clinton would never have been the presidential nominee for the Democratic Party.”

headlines 2

True.  And actually, “If either paper had done the sort of digging on Hillary Clinton that they did on Trump,” she would be in jail, along with a lot of her friends.

“So, in a different scenario, if the Times and the Washington Post probe Clinton, alert the public to all of her ‘problems’ then the Democrats are forced to pick someone else as their candidate.  In that case, Trump might not have won.”

In reality, Mr. Crudele, anything “might” have happened.  It really annoys me these days when reporters say, “this might happen,” or that “could happen,” or this “may” happen.

Here’s some news for all of you journalism majors: ANYTHING “MIGHT,”  “COULD,” OR “MAY” HAPPEN!  THAT’S NOT NEWS!

John Crudele of The New York Post contribued.

headlines 1

 

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.

 

Robert Mueller and his “investigation” were just bad jokes.  End of story.

Robert Mueller and his Hillary Clinton “hit squad” just were not able to manufacture any wrong doings by The President, his family, or anyone involved in his campaign.

Remember that Mueller and his team and everyone else knew going in that President Trump wasn’t guilty of any of this stuff, but Hillary, Obama, the Obama DOJ and the Obama FBI were, and it was their job to create a distraction and deflect an investigation away from their “swampy” friends.

This was not an investigation of a crime, this was an “investigation” in search of a crime…, any crime…, but there was no crime to be found.  Believe me…, if they could have found anything…, ANYTHING…, A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G…, that’s all we would be hearing about.

But as it is, Robert Mueller and his team finally had to slink away, with their tails between their legs, unable to come up with anything that would justify the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media’s” and the democrats’ daily charges (for almost two years now) of Russian collusion and obstruction of justice.

This is what today’s New York Times headline SHOULD look like!

mueller report paper

Instead, after close to two years of bashing our president on a daily basis, they are sporting some mealy-mouthed small print headline that doesn’t come anywhere near giving The President his due.

According to Dan Gainor of Fox News, “[The] Liberal media’s Mueller collusion coverage turns out to be Titanic of media disasters.”

The “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” bought “the swamp’s” fantasy narrative, hook, line and sinker!

The rallying cries of “It’s Mueller time!” have turned into “What you talkin’ ‘bout Willis?”

mueller time

The much anticipated Mueller Report has exposed, “… one of the worst disasters of media bias in history – the false claim that Donald Trump, his campaign or associates colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election.”

“Attorney General William Barr sent a letter to members of Congress Sunday stating that Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion – something the president has been saying [all along].”

“Like the luxury liner Titanic, the supposedly unsinkable passenger ship that sank when it collided with an iceberg in 1912 in the Atlantic, the claim of Trump-Russia collusion was supposed to be unsinkable. At least that’s what we were told repeatedly by the anti-Trump media.”

“But in reality, there’s nothing new about Russia’s attempts to influence our elections. The Washington Post has reported that Russia and its predecessor Soviet Union have been trying to influence American elections since 1960.”

“Yet ever since President Trump was elected – surprising media pundits who expected Democrat Hillary Clinton to defeat him – many news organizations have claimed he only got to the Oval Office because of help from Russia.  Forget that President Obama had promised Russia’s leader he’d have “more flexibility” working with Russia after the 2012 election. It had to be Trump who was the one working with Russia.”

“Journalists set aside ordinary things like honesty, professionalism and accuracy in their desperate quest to be the one who took down Trump.”

I would argue that things like honest, professionalism and accuracy had been set aside long before this by the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media.” The whole Russian collusion hoax just removed any shadow of a doubt that the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” was real and an enemy of We the People, just like President Trump had warned.

“The Russia collusion claim dominated the news for the past two years because much of the media couldn’t accept that their favored candidate – Hillary Clinton – was beaten by a man they could not stand.”

“There had to be another reason Trump won. The media had reported many times he was almost guaranteed to lose.”

“Buzzfeed published the uncorroborated dossier attacking Trump with salacious gossip and rumor even before he took office. Then it defended the foul result.”

“Three CNN reporters resigned after their false Trump-Russia story was removed from the CNN website.”

“On it went. ABC’s then-investigative reporter Brian Ross incorrectly reported that Trump directed Michael Flynn to contact Russia. ABC had to bail the lifeboats when it turned out that the contact was post-election. The Dow was underwater briefly for about 350 points. Ross was later suspended and he no longer works at ABC.”

“The list of such failures is almost endless. Now the press is forced to admit the Mueller report vindicated the president on collusion.”

“According to Barr, Mueller found that when the president said repeatedly that “there was no collusion” the president was right.”

“The narrative collapse would cause sane men and women to stop and reassess how they got here, how they got to a point where they violated every tenet of journalism they claim to support – just for revenge on Trump.”

“A few have noticed. Liberal writer Matt Taibbi released a whole chapter of his upcoming book ‘Hate, Inc.,’ demolishing media coverage of Trump. The piece was headlined: ‘It’s official: Russiagate is this generation’s WMD,’ comparing the false collusion claims to the incorrect claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction to justify the U.S.invasion.”

“Taibbi called the Mueller report ‘a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media.’

“The media didn’t just ignore warnings like the Titanic captain. They aimed right at an iceberg (Trump) and were determined to smash it. Instead, the only thing that sank was their reputation.”

mueller report meme

Agreed, Mr. Gainor, although I would say a lot more than their reputation has sank…, many of these networks, newspapers and magazines have lost any shred of credibility they may have had, and their viabilities as functioning media outlets are now in question.

WINNING!

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would call that quite significant!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just sayin’.

 

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

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

nytimes-fake_news-all_the_news

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑