Environ Nut 01

Recent news came out that I’m quite sure was not music to the ears of those who claim that the planet is getting hotter by the minute, and it is all the fault of you and me.  It comes to us in the form of a new study out of, all places, the United Kingdom.  You see, it’s this new study that predicts planet Earth is about to go through a major climatic shift that could mean decades of cooler temperatures resulting in fewer hurricanes hitting the United States.  At the very same time that Barry was recently heard decrying the ‘fact’ that there will be more and stronger hurricanes and we also heard Al ‘Not-So’ Sharpton blaming the storms in Texas on ‘climate change.’

You see, apparently, we seem to have some actual scientists at the University of Southampton who are now predicting that a cooling of the Atlantic Ocean could cool global temperatures by at least a half a degree Celsius and may even offer what the study called, a “brief respite from the persistent rise of global temperatures.”  According to Dr. Gerard McCarthy, one of the guys involved, this cooling phase in the Atlantic will influence “temperature, rainfall, drought and even the frequency of hurricanes in many regions of the world.”  The study’s authors based their results on ocean sensor arrays and 100 years of sea-level data.  Not faulty computer models.

McCarthy, the study’s lead author, said,  “Sea-surface temperatures in the Atlantic vary between warm and cold over time-scales of many decades”  And he went on to say, “This decadal variability, called the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO), is a notable feature of the Atlantic Ocean and the climate of the regions it influences.”  And Dr. David Smeed, a co-author, said in a statement, “The observations of [AMO] from [sensor arrays], over the past ten years, show that it is declining.  As a result, we expect the AMO is moving to a negative phase, which will result in cooler surface waters. This is consistent with observations of temperature in the North Atlantic.”

Researchers argue that a negative AMO will bring “drier summers in Britain and Ireland, accelerated sea-level rise along the northeast coast of the United States, and drought in the developing countries of the Sahel region.”  Interestingly enough, the study also predicts fewer hurricanes hitting the U.S. as a result of a cooler Atlantic.  Atlantic cooling can impact the climate for decades, according to researchers, on timescales from 20 to 30 years. This means cooler global temperatures and changing weather patterns could unfold over the next two to three decades, possibly extending the so-called “pause” in global warming.

For years, scientists have been debating why satellite temperature data shows that there has been about 18 years with no warming trend. Surface temperature data shows a similar pause in warming for the last 10 to 15 years.  So far, the dominant explanation seems to be that oceans have absorbed a lot of the heat that would have otherwise gone into the atmosphere. And most scientists argue the world will continue warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.  Some scientists, however, have been arguing the world is indeed headed for a cooling phase based on solar cycles. Scientists from Germany to India have argued that weakening solar activity could bring about another “Little Ice Age.”

Jürgen Lange Heine, a physicist with the German-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) wrote, “The stagnation of temperature since 1998 was caused by decreasing solar activity since 1998.”  He went on to write as well, “From 1900 to 1998, solar radiation increased by 1.3 W / m², but since 1998 it has diminished, and could reach values similar to those of the early 20th century. A drop in global temperature over the next few years is predicted.”  The Virginia-based Vencore Weather recently reported that “[n]ot since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots.”

It was Vencore Weather experts that also noted, “We are currently more than six years into Solar Cycle 24 and the current nearly blank sun may signal the end of the solar maximum phase.”  These experts went on to say, “Going back to 1755, there have been only a few solar cycles in the previous 23 that have had a lower number of sunspots during its maximum phase.”  McCarthy and his colleagues, however, argue there could be a reprieve from warming based on natural ocean cycles– not solar activity. The British scientists argue that weaker ocean currents are carrying less heat northward from the tropics.  Either way, the evidence says it’s not caused by man.

So if these scientists are correct, and this supposed “global warming” is actually not being caused by man, what’s an environmental scam artist like Al Gore to do?  And doesn’t Barry look like even more of a liar when he tells Coast Guard graduates that ‘climate change’ is a very real threat.  So, will the cadre of ‘climate change/global warming/climate disruption’ goons now simply set out to assassinate the character of these ‘bogus’ scientists who insist upon denying that the planet is now heating up?  So can these scientists now consider themselves as being counted amongst those of us who are commonly referred to as “deniers” or flat-earthers?”


Omalley 05

While it’s those of us the right who are usually in the position of having to choose between the lesser of two, or more, evils, this time around it may be those on the left who may be forced into just such a situation.  Such a dilemma has as its source the myth among many on the left that decades of experience has made Hitlery the most pragmatic choice, and therefore the odds on favorite, for president in 2016.  But like most fairy tales, it conveniently glosses over the heroine’s many, and very obvious, flaws.  For instance, there is her 31,000-plus missing emails (the subject of a lawsuit by the Associated Press), questions about foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, and direct donations to Hitlery from big banks, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan.

And it’s because of such flaws that there now seems to be a growing amount of talk about there being a rather obvious alternative to the old girl.  That rather than to rely on someone who can’t seem to elude perpetual media scrutiny, the person now being heralded as being the one that more Democrats should pay closer attention to is none other than Marty O’Malley, former governor of the People’s Republic of Maryland.  Marty, who, is said to be poised to officially join the race later this Saturday. The former Baltimore mayor and two-term governor is said to offers genuine alternative to the status quo within Washington and is said to be a real threat to any GOP challenger.  But would we really elect the guy who dreamt up a tax on rain?   What else might he want to tax, perhaps the air we breathe?  But I digress.

It’s said by those who support Marty that, unlike Hitlery, he isn’t linked to perpetual scandal and criticism, nor is he beholden to foreign donors, investment banks or a family surname.  He has stated, and rightfully so I suppose, that the presidency isn’t “some crown to be passed between two families” and compared to Hitlery, Marty is said to offer what is a genuinely ‘progressive’ outlook on American politics. As if that progressivism has been shown to be a good thing for America.  When both candidates are analyzed, it’s apparent that one caters to poll-driven centrism while the other is far more confident in a ‘progressive’ vision for America.  That would be, I guess, the same vision he inflicted upon Maryland which resulted in the governor’s mansion going Republican for the first time since the 60’s.

Another supposed selling point for Marty that many leftists seem to like to point out is the fact that while Hitlery voted for the invasion of Iraq, Marty has been a longtime critic of the Iraq War.  And also it was as governor that Marty sponsored and then signed a same-sex marriage bill when Hitlery was overtly against gay marriage.  He also signed a marijuana decriminalization bill, while Hitlery has said she was against the decriminalization of marijuana.  Marty wants to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act (repealed during the Clinton years), has called the Trans-Pacific Partnership a “bad trade deal,” and urged the Senate in 2014 to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.  Hitlery, on the other hand, once referred to TPP as “the gold standard in trade agreements,” and she still hasn’t taken a stance on the Keystone XL pipeline.

Perhaps the biggest issue many have with Hitlery, and one that many on the left say that Marty, Bernie Sanders and Jim Webb don’t face, is a “trust deficit” felt by many of those on the left.  A recent Washington Post article titled “For Hillary Clinton, a trust deficit to surmount,” highlights how even favorable polls indicate a rather distinct lack of trust.  More than six in 10 voters, or 62 percent, seem to think that Hitlery has “strong leadership qualities.”  In that same sample, though, less than four in 10, or 38 percent, said she was honest and trustworthy. A majority, 54 percent, said she is not honest and trustworthy, including 61 percent of independents.  With Marty, however, leadership skills don’t translate to a majority of people questioning his honesty, only his intelligence.

According to his supporters there on the left Marty represents an honest, bold and capable alternative to Hitlery and a worthwhile challenger to any GOP candidate.  However, I would argue that the making of such a claim can also be easily described as being a fairy tale in its own right.  Those on the left say that he isn’t a magnet for perpetual scandal, and he isn’t beholden to special interests or vapid centrism. These, or so it is claimed, are competitive advantages over Hitlery would help Marty defeat any Republican for important battleground states in 2016.  But Marty does have a record as governor, and while it is a record in which progressives may find many positives, it is not a record that demonstrates what many feel, after the Barry years, our country needs to get back on the right track.

And as has always been the case, but especially regarding those Democrat candidates running for president, what must be determined before taking anyone under possible consideration is the level of patriotism and love of country that the candidate possesses. Now we know, and with some level of certainty, that Hitlery, like Barry, has a very low opinion of this country, and I have heard nothing from Marty that would indicate to me that his sentiment is any different than the other two.  Democrats have a long, and very proud, history of hating their country, and have consistently demonstrated that they have absolutely no love for any of those institutions that made this country great.  And they certainly have no love for our Constitution.  For the rest of us there is no lesser evil where Democrats are involved.


Hitlery 06

In the words of Ronald Reagan, “There they go again.”  This past Wednesday it was Democrat presidential hopeful Hitlery Clinton who was heard telling what must have been some of her more devoted followers, “We have come through some really tough economic times.”   And she then went on to say, “American families have made a lot of sacrifices,” noting that people lost jobs and homes and delayed college and retirement when the recession hit in 2008.  She neglected to mention, however, that it has been during the tenure of Barry “Almighty” that things have only gotten worse.

And it was then that she went on to imply to that same demented little group that none of those sacrifices that have become so necessary are the fault of our current president.  She said, “And I will say that there does seem to be a pattern. Democratic presidents — and there’s two in particular I’m thinking about — over the last 35 years seem to inherit a mess of problems. Have you noticed that?”  And then Hitlery said, “So then they have to dig us out of the ditches they find themselves in and put us back on the right track. And of course, I’m talking about Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.”

She then proceeded to ask the crowd, “Are we going to hand over our country once again to the people and policies that crashed our economy before and that will shred the progress that we’ve made?”  Now I gotta ask you, just how ignorant must one be in order to actually believe such idiotic drivel?  Whose policies have been in place over the course of what has been the last seven years that have succeeded in reducing American economic forward progress to near zero?  Is that what Hitlery considers as being the right track?  I guess I’m not sure what old Hitlery is talking about.

Hitlery said that’s what her campaign is going to be about — “because we’re going to have to stand up to the people who want to keep the deck stacked in favor of those at the top.”  I just thought that it was a rather odd thing for her to say, especially since it is her own party that has worked, and continues to work, so hard to keep the deck to which she refers stacked against so many.  The reason being, of course, is that Democrats ‘need’ people to become increasingly dependent upon government, and it has been under Barry millions more have come to depend on government.

Now I will admit that Hitlery is quite right when she implies that the next president, whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican, male or female, will most certainly inherit what can only be described as being a rather sizable “mess of problems.”  Of that there is very little doubt.  And the list is a rather long and quite impressive one.  It includes the rise of the Islamic State, the disintegration of Iraq, turmoil in the Middle East, tensions with Russia and China, a continuing troop presence in Afghanistan, to name only a few of the more important foreign policy concerns.

And it’s here at home that the economy and jobs remain a top concern of most Americans, according to a Gallup Poll conducted earlier this month. And was that same poll that showed Americans are more concerned about race relations than they were when Barry first took office. No surprise there especially after having witnessed Barry do all that he can to increase tension between the races for nothing but purely political purposes.  Other top worries of the American people include immigration/illegal aliens, and ethics/moral/religious decline.

And then of course there’s the problem of our growing national debt. When Barry first took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the total federal debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08. As of the close of business on May 26, 2015, it had risen to $18,152,327,453,268.84 — up $7,525,450,404,355.76 from Barry’s first inauguration day.  Talk about a rather impressive list of problems to be inherited!  Now that’s not to say that these things cannot be overcome, if the right person is elected.  After all, Reagan took the mess handed to him by Carter, and instead of whining, fixed things.

At the end of her speech, and in a message apparently intended for her only female rival thus far, Republican Carly Fiorina, Hitlery said, “No matter how hard this election or any election becomes, we should remember that, at the core, we can have disagreements — and we will. We have different governing philosophies. We have different views about what works and what the evidence shows works about economic policies. That’s all fair game.”  The evidence to which Hitlery likely refers, proves nothing more than what an abject failure leftist economic policies are.

And Hitlery went on to say, “But we should show more respect toward each other.”  But as we all know, when it comes to mutual respect, as far as Democrats like Hitlery are concerned, that’s pretty much a one way street.  Hitlery said the “core of every political campaign” should be “how we treat one another and how we care for this gift we have been given, the United States of America.”  I find more than a bit disingenuous whenever I hear someone like Hitlery, a devoted follower of Saul Alinsky, so determined in destroying our country, describe America as being a gift.

Fiorina also campaigned in South Carolina on Wednesday, and was heard criticizing Hitlery directly on a number of various policy issues.  Fiorina told reporters on the sidewalk outside the hotel where Hitlery would speak later, “I think we need a nominee who will ask her (Hitlery) these questions about trustworthiness, about transparency and about track record.”  In an interview on Wednesday with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Fiorina said she comes from a world where what you have actually done matters more than what you have said.

She said, “Actions speak louder than words. People want to know are your words and your actions consistent and are they consistent over time.  And so I think when 82 percent of the American people now believe that there is a professional political class more interested in preserving its own power and privilege than it is in serving the American people, people expect basic questions to be asked of anyone running for president.  What have you done?  Are you trustworthy?  Are you transparent?  Will you answer questions?”  But I wonder if people really do care.  I’d like to think so.

You know, it frightens me to think that there may now be enough people in this country who are convinced that Hitlery is just the right person to take the helm.  I wonder how it is that anyone can look at what has become of our country, both hear at home and abroad, during Barry’s time as president and can still come to the conclusion that things are going so well that it would be idiotic to change things now.  Actually what’s idiotic is to think it makes any amount of sense to keep things going as they have been for the last seven years.  If ever ‘change’ was needed, it’s NOW!


obama 097

With his time in office now slowly, albeit far too slowly, drawing to a close, although it can’t get here soon enough for me, there has much talk going around of late regarding what kind of legacy Barry “Almighty” will leave behind.  It has been during his two terms in the White House, Barry has done his best to make same-sex marriage the law of the land; implement trailblazing environmental regulations to crackdown on climate change; issue sweeping legislation allowing millions of undocumented immigrants to remain in the country; and reconstructed, some would argue deconstructed, the healthcare system in this country.

It has been noted by many of those whose job it is to ponder such ponderable things that there have been more than a few blows dealt to Barry’s various policies by the Supreme Court — a venue where those representing his administration have done less than a stellar job — that some think have placed his legacy in jeopardy.  And it has also been pointed out that the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled against Barry’s administration positions in at least 13 cases just since January 2012.  Not exactly a ringing endorsement of those policies that Barry has tried to promulgate.  But that never stopped him from trying to use his pen and his phone.

It was John Fund who writes, “The tenure of both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder has been marked by a dangerous push to legitimize a vast expansion of the power of the federal government that endangers the liberty and freedom of Americans.”  And he goes on to say, “They have taken such extreme position on key issues that the Court has uncharacteristically slapped them down time and time again.”  He adds, “Historically, the Justice Department has won about 70 percent of its cases before the high court. But in each of the last three terms, the Court has ruled against the administration a majority of the time.”

And it’s on the topic of same-sex marriage that Barry continues to maintain that his views on the topic have “evolved” from opposing it when he first ran for president in 2008 — a reversal from his 1996 Illinois Senate campaign when he supported it — to backing it in 2012 after Vice President ‘Slow Joe’ Biden publicly pledged support for gay marriage. After contradictory decisions by federal appeals courts, the Supreme Court heard a case brought by Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee arguing that the decision should be left to the states. Same-sex marriage proponents say gay marriage bans violate couples’ constitutional rights.

The court’s much anticipated June decision is a “potentially historic ruling” that will cap “a two-decade legal and political fight for marriage equality,” at least according to the Los Angeles Times.  In 2013, according to the Washington Post, the Supreme Court ruled in the administration’s favor by allowing the federal government to recognize legally married same-sex couples.  So Barry may yet be able to ram this down the collective throat of the American with help for a Supreme Court that may actually lean more than a little to the left on the issue.  So we will see if it turns out to be a ‘historic ruling’ or another slap at Barry.

Obamacare, aka The Affordable Care Act, Barry’s signature legislation, could be torpedoed if the court rules in favor of a group challenging the legality of Obamacare subsidies to residents in 37 states that didn’t set up their own healthcare exchanges.  The New York Times reported this week that a four-word clause — “established by the state” — included in the 900-page act specifies that federal subsidies are only permitted for people who buy their coverage on state-run exchanges, not those who go through the federal marketplace, HealthCare.gov.  Some 7.5 million people stand to lose their subsidies if the court rules they are unconstitutional.

And it was in the Hobby Lobby case, brought by the evangelical Christian owners of an arts and crafts store chain by the same name, that the Supreme Court found that family-owned businesses do not have to provide birth control coverage to their employees if it conflicts with the business owners’ religious beliefs.  The landmark decision, rendered on June 30, 2014, extended for the first time religious protections to for-profit corporations, The Boston Globe reported, noting that the ruling was a win for social conservatives who opposed a provision of Obamacare that required contraceptive coverage be included in health insurance provided by businesses.

And as far as Barry’s penchant for making rather questionable recess appointments, the high court issued a unanimous rebuke of the president for exceeding his constitutional authority by making high-level government appointments in 2012 — specifically to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) — when he declared that the Senate was in recess and unable to act on the nominations.  In January 2012, while the Senate met in pro forma sessions every three days specifically to deny the president his recess powers, Obama made three recess appointments to the NLRB and one to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Barry contended that “even though the Senate was meeting every three days, the pro forma sessions meant just a single senator was on the chamber floor for a brief time, and no real business was conducted, which meant the Senate was really not in session.”  The majority opinion of the justices on the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that “the founding fathers intended for the president only to be able to use his recess appointment powers when the Senate was gone for a long period of time, not the brief breaks Congress regularly takes for holidays or weekends.”  Apparently Barry, the Constitutional scholar, interpreted things differently.

This past spring, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case challenging what has been called by some in the state-controlled media Barry’s “signature environmental achievement”: Environmental Protection Agency regulations limiting the amount of mercury emissions and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired and oil-fired utility plants.  More than 20 states and “major industry groups” such as the National Mining Association argue that the rules place undue costs on power plants.  The EPA estimates that the regulations, which would require plants to install high-tech scrubbers to remove the pollutants, come with an estimated $9.6 Billion annual price tag.  A decision is expected next month.

And on the topic of Immigration, Barry’s immigration policy took a hit as recently as this past Tuesday, when a federal appeals court in New Orleans, in a 2-1 decision, denied Barry’s emergency request to lift a lower court’s injunction on deferring deportations of millions of undocumented immigrants, according to a Washington Post story.  Alleging executive overreach, 26 states sued the federal government after Barry issued an executive order in November expanding programs that allow millions of undocumented immigrants to remain in the country and apply for work permits and some government benefits.  But he didn’t get his way, at least not yet.

In February, a federal judge in Brownsville, Texas, blocked Barry’s order on the grounds that it should not be implemented until the case is resolved.  The administration appealed the decision and it was decided in the plaintiffs’ favor.  In typical fashion the White House issued a scathing criticism of the opinion.  White House bimbo, Brandi Hoffine said, “As the powerful dissent from Judge [Stephen] Higginson recognizes, President Obama’s immigration executive actions are fully consistent with the law.  The president’s actions were designed to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy, and keep our communities safe.”

Republican House Speaker John Boehner lauded the ruling.  And in one of those rare instances where I find myself in agreement with the Speaker, he said, “The president said 22 times he did not have the authority to take the very action on immigration he eventually did, and the courts have agreed once again.”  But the number of things that Barry has managed to do despite the fact that he did not have the authority to them is really quite impressive.  And he got away with doing those things primary because we had in Congress a combination of rabid ideologues who were in complete agreement with him, and a band of gutless cowards too afraid to stand up to him.

Personally, I would argue that Barry’s legacy is quite secure.  He is the first foreign born, affirmative action, America hating, white-hating president of this once great republic.  He has done what will most likely turn out to be irreparable damage to this country both domestically and internationally.  This harm was not done out of ignorance, incompetence or even stupidity as many would have you believe, but out of a naked, plain and obvious hatred for The United States.  His legacy will be one of an evil-doer who could always count on the ignorance of the American people.  His legacy will be one of someone who easily and blatantly lied about everything and always got away with it because the press was too feckless to call him on it. They were too afraid of being called “racist”.  Better to let a half black man lie than tell the truth about his lies.  Let’s pray that the electorate never makes the same mistake.  But with so much talk about Hitlery Clinton, I’m not the least bit optimistic.



Regarding the goings on in our nation’s capital, does anyone other than myself find themselves wondering how it is that we who were once considered to be the freest, and most prosperous people on the face of this planet, came to allow things to spin so wildly out of control?  When was it that things to come so completely off the tracks?  And what must we have been thinking for us to allow our politicians to have now come so completely off the chain?   We had to have known deep in our gut that that was not a good idea.  And yet, we offered so very little resistance.

But then I suppose ‘how’ we came to be at this particular point in time matters very little.  What matters now, I would think, is that we all agree to work together toward finding some way of possibly reversing things.  But the question is, do enough of us still possess the necessary will, or the desire, to even attempt such a thing?   We are supposed to be a nation of laws, with a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  But somewhere along the way that was apparently thought to be far too difficult.  So instead, we chose to relinquish our control.

So whose fault is it that we now find ourselves being so thoroughly ignored by a majority of those whom we chose to put into office as recently as 7 months ago?  Our first mistake was to believe the many campaign lies we were told, and now we’re paying the price.  And likely when the next election rolls around many of these same perpetrators will once again expect us to trust them when they say that they are on our side.  But their actions speak far louder than their words.  They need to be made to understand that once trust is lost, it’s very difficult to regain.

So what are we to do in the meantime?  Resign ourselves to the fact that we now have no control of our government?  It saddens me greatly that the future that now lies in front of my daughter is most certainly not the one that I had envisioned for her.  And I cannot be the only one who feels this way.  And if we are to have any hope of providing a better future for our children than the one that now exists then we must be willing to make certain sacrifices.  Freedom is not cheap nor is it something that comes about without there being a great deal of work involved.

And by work, I’m not necessarily talking about any actual physical labor, because we know that these days far too many Americans avoid that as if it were the plague.  What I mean by work is the getting, and keeping, of ourselves informed of what your leaders may be up to, and to be willing to hold them accountable regardless of political party.  The country must always be made to come first.  And if you are unwilling to do that, then you become nothing more than a part of the continuing problem.  The country must be made to survive.

What we all need to do, regardless of our gender, sexual orientation, faith, or lack of, our race or ethnic background is to come to grips with the fact that there is no other country on Earth where one can, if willing to work hard and play by the rules, accomplish absolutely anything that one puts one’s mind to.  And what we are rapidly losing here is that opportunity, and once it is lost, it will essentially be lost for us all and for generations.  Life isn’t fair, but life ‘is’ what you choose to make of it, and nowhere but here in America can you make so much of it.

I worry that we’re letting things slip through our fingers, with far too few of us seeming to see that as being any sort of a problem.  Freedom is a pretty rare commodity here on planet Earth, and once it’s lost, whether by being freely given away, or with it being taken at the point of a gun, it’s always nearly impossible to ever get back.  But many see that as being no big deal.  But it is a big deal, it’s a very big deal!  Look, I don’t claim to have all the answers when it comes to trying to take our country back, but I do know that we need to recalibrate our priorities if we are to have any hope of surviving.


media 04

There’s an old saying that says, “What goes around, comes around.”  And then, there’s yet another, just as old, saying that might also be applicable when it comes to the behavior of those in our state-controlled media.  It says, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”  I will leave it to the reader to determine for themselves which might be the most fitting regarding the recent discovery made by a new Rasmussen survey about how the American people feel about their ‘news’ media.  You see, what was found out as a result of this survey is that 61 percent of Likely Voters in the United States now say they don’t trust the political news they’re getting.

In addition to the 61 percent, it was 59 percent who are of the opinion that coverage of the 2016 presidential race will be slanted, and it was 46 percent who said that ABC’s George ‘Stephy’ Stephanopoulos should be banned from any presidential campaign coverage because of donations he made to the Clinton Foundation.  The survey asked likely voters five questions ranging from whether they trusted the ‘news’ they were getting, to their opinions on whether reporters would try to help or hurt certain candidates.  It might be worth noting that the 61 percent of likely voters who do not trust the political ‘news’ they receive is a 16-point increase from the last survey taken just last October, when 45 percent of likely voters said the same thing.

It was also according to Rasmussen that 21 percent of likely voters say they still have confidence in the political coverage they get while 17 percent say they aren’t sure. The 21 percent who said they have confidence is down 12 points from the last time the survey was taken, when 33 percent said they were confident.  In addition to not trusting the political ‘news’, 48 percent of likely voters believe that media bias is a problem in politics.  According to Rasmussen, “Forty-eight percent of voters think media bias is a bigger problem in politics today than big campaign contributions, but nearly as many see campaign cash as the larger problem.  Majorities of voters across most demographic groups do not trust the political news they are getting.”

And not only do many voters think that media bias is a problem, but 37 percent also believe that the average reporter is more liberal than they are.  According to Rasmussen, “Thirty-seven percent of Americans believe the average media reporter is more liberal than they are.  Eighteen percent consider that reporter more conservative.”  The report goes on to state, “When it comes to the 2016 presidential campaign, only 23% believe most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.”  It adds, “Fifty-nine percent think that coverage will be slanted instead, with 36% who say most reporters will try to help Hillary Clinton during the campaign and 23% who say they will try to hurt her bid for the White House instead. Seventeen percent are not sure.”

The survey states, “Forty-two percent of voters who don’t trust the political news they are getting think most reporters will try to help Clinton; just 14% believe the media’s coverage of the 2016 race will be unbiased.”  And it then says, “Among those who do trust political news coverage, 38% say most reporters will try to stay neutral, but nearly as many think they will try to help the Democratic frontrunner.”  While 46 percent said Stephanopoulos, who was a top adviser to ‘BJ’ Clinton, should be banned from covering any news on the 2016 presidential race, 34 percent said “they are less likely to believe the reporting on ABC News because Stephanopoulos failed to disclose the donations [he made] to the Clinton Foundation.”

But you know, if you bother to tune into any of the nightly network ‘news’ programs or nearly any of the cable ‘news’ programs, or choose to pickup a copy of nearly any issue of print ‘news’, it would seem that the purveyors of what passes as ‘news’ today are bothered very little by the fact that a majority of Americans simply no longer trust much of what it is that they have say.  And yet, far too many Americans simply can’t be bothered to do what’s necessary to get, and to keep, themselves informed despite the level of journalistic malpractice that has been painfully obvious since 2007, especially as it related to Barry.  It has become obvious we can no longer trust the state-controlled media to provide us with usable, and actionable, information.