Well it would seem that Fox News ‘Inquisitors’ were again in what was so very obvious, attack mode when it came to Donald Trump. From idiotic Chris Wallace and his equally idiotic slide show to Megyn Kelly and her flip-flop videos, Fox News came loaded for bear to what was less a debate and more of a political broadside attack on Donald Trump last night.  This was something that I would have expected to see on CNN or MSNBC, not on what’s supposed to be the ‘conservative alternative.’  I watched for about 30 or 40 minutes before turning to ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’.

This time, they seemed to have vowed to one another that Trump simply would not be permitted to get away with vagaries about cutting waste and abuse.  This time, they vowed, he wouldn’t wriggle out of past contradictions like shedding past skins.  So compete with slide shows, loaded questions and attitude, they were going to get their man, one way or another.  So on a day when Trump spent much of his time beating back attacks from leaders of his own party’s establishment, starting with 2012 loser Mitt Romney, he walked straight into what the Fox moderators had waiting for him.

It was Chris Wallace who was first out of the gate.  And in what was, I guess, an effort to make ‘Daddy Mike’ proud as he looked up from beyond the Gates of Hell, that he said, “Your numbers don’t add up, sir,” after Trump went into a standard response about how he would cut waste and abuse from the Education Department and EPA to cover his tax plans.  But, with these three having planned a coordinated strike, Wallace was quick to produce a graphic, that he had standing at the ready, showing that cutting all of both agencies would barely trim the deficit, let alone pay for huge new tax cuts.

And when Trump pivoted to another topic– how the government loses money by not being able to negotiate lower prices with pharmaceutical companies, you could almost see Wallace salivating.  Because having already anticipated Trump’s move, and before Trump could even finish talking, Wallace already pulled up yet another equation.  Wallace said, “Let’s put up full screen number two.”  Then he added, “You say that Medicare could save $300 billion a year negotiating lower drug prices. But Medicare total only spends $78 billion a year on drugs. Sir, that’s the facts.”

Then came the highly anticipated return engagement between Trump and Ms. Megyn, who appeared to have had more than a little work done.  Kelly, as you may recall, was the anchor he repeatedly scorned for having taken him on in Fox’s first debate last summer by highlighting his comments about women over the years. Trump avoided confronting Kelly in January by skipping that month’s Fox News debate entirely.  This rematch proved to be more of a throwdown as Kelly seemed to dare Trump to go after her as she launched some of the toughest questions of the night his way.

Kelly said, “Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is they believe you tell it like it is. Time and time again in this campaign, you’ve actually told the voters one thing only to reverse yourself within weeks or even sometimes days.”  And as she did she proceeded to tee up three video clips of Trump changing his position on Afghanistan, Syrian refugees and whether George W. Bush lied about Iraq. She then asked, “How is any of this telling it like it is?”  And then added, “You change your tune on so many things, and that has some people saying, what is his core?”

For many of those watching, including myself, it was as though the ‘Fox Three’ had now chosen to officially take on the job of taking Trump down since none of the other candidates had managed to do so with any significant level of success. The moderators weren’t nearly as persistent with the other candidates as they were with Trump, a decision, I suppose you could argue, that seems justified by his standing as the likeliest nominee.  But since when is it the job of debate moderators to head up an attack on the frontrunner?  Sure, it’s Trump this time, but who might it be next time?

It was earlier in the week that Wallace, in explaining why certain candidates would get more questions than others, said, “I think we certainly take note of who are the candidates that seem to have a better chance of nomination as opposed to those who don’t.”  Wallace went on to say, “I think we went out of our way early on in the process to treat everyone as much the same as possible, but to be certain people at the center of stage will get more questions and will get more response to attacks.”  But what Trump was on the receiving end was an unusual level of hostility.

In addition to Wallace’s number crunching and Kelly’s flip-flop videos, the moderators also highlighted quotes from a court decision involving Trump University and showed an odd John Kasich campaign ad that questioned whether Trump and Vladimir Putin would team up to “make tyranny great again.”  Kasich chose not to take part in the Trump melee, choosing to avoid an attack on Trump which would invite a response.  When provided with an opportunity to join in he simply said, “I’m not biting.”  A fact that apparently went over well with various focus groups.

But the other two up there on the stage were only two eager to ‘bite’, chiming in, almost, as if on cue at every opportunity handed to them.  It just seemed all a bit too coordinated for me.  But I’m told that the hard hitting questions stopped for a while after Wallace, Kelly and the third moderator, Bret Baier, left the stage and the cameras turned to Bill O’Reilly for the immediate post-game interview with Trump. I wouldn’t know, I’m not crazy about O’Reilly either.  And by then I was likely watching as Ronan and Peter Quill duked it out over the ‘Infinity Stone.’

During the brief time I spent watching, I was trying to remember when it was that I last saw any of these ‘journalists’ go after a Democrat, or even an ‘Establishment Republican’, with the same level of intensity that they have continually gone after Trump.  And anyone watching who allowed these moderators to change their opinion of Trump simply fell right into the trap that was set for them.  And why should we believe these moderators and their pretty graphics any more than we should believe Trump?  I mean who came into this debate with the more obvious ulterior motive?

And finally, lest anyone gets the wrong impression here, and presumes me to be a Trump supporter, let me be very clear.  At this stage of the game I most certainly am not.  But I have become more than a little disappointed in my candidate in that he seems to be far too willing, once he gets on the debate stage, to become little more than a Fox News attack dog in their effort to rid the race of Trump.  But make no mistake, unlike so many others, should Trump be our nominee, I will vote for him against Hitlery.  Because staying away from this very crucial election makes no sense.


FOX News 1

There was once upon a time when most nights at my house pretty much the only thing that was on my television from 8 until 11 was the Fox News channel.  But, as they say, times change. And it would seem that time has changed for far more folks than just me.  Because while over the course of the past six months Fox News has boasted some the highest ratings in its near-20-year history, its standing upon Republican viewers seems to have hit a three-year low.

By mid-February perception by Republican adults 18 and over had reached its lowest point in more than three years, and has declined by approximately 50% since January of this year.  And it is perhaps no coincidence that the downward trend in Republican esteem coincides with a highly dramatic election cycle that has seen the rise of Donald Trump, the GOP frontrunner who has gained favor with many Republican voters, and has relentlessly needled both Fox and the party establishment.

Trump’s rather ‘dramatic’, to say the least, style has garnered him mountains of free media publicity, and no doubt is partially responsible for the blockbuster ratings of the first Republican debate, which aired on Fox in August, setting a record for the most-viewed telecast in the network’s history. The second-most-viewed was Fox’s second GOP debate, which Trump sat out.  But it was the tactics of Megyn Kelly during the first debate that simply turned me off.

Both anti- and pro-Trump Republicans are apt to have lost some partiality for Fox: the anti-camp because the network rewards his antics with free publicity, the pro faction because Trump has constantly blasted the network and its ‘anchor’ Megyn Kelly for not demonstrating sufficient fairness or respect to him. That 50-percent downturn since January corresponds to the period of the most antagonistic feuding between Fox and ‘The Donald’.

And look, anyone who has been paying even the slightest amount of attention to Fox News over the course of this campaign could not help but to have noticed which candidate it is that the network so very obviously favors.  And really, any supposedly enlightened “news organization” that is stupid enough to support Rubio is no longer worth considering as a credible news source, nor one that truly qualifies as caring about what will benefit America.  It’s all about propaganda.

And it demonstrating that what we have going on over at Fox is nothing short of a concerted effort to prevent Trump from becoming our nominee we have some folks over there on the Fox Business channel.  I watched the first debate that they had and it seemed like Maria Bartiromo was doing her best Megyn Kelly impersonation and Neil Cavuto must have been channeling Chris Matthews.  Hence that was the first and last debate that I chose to watch on that channel.

And it was very recently that Cavuto had Mitt ‘The Loser’ Romney call into his program and allowed him to take what were nothing more than baseless pot shots at Trump.  Interestingly enough, Romney’s pot shots at Trump were remarkably similar to the pot shots that ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid took at Romney in 2012.  And I think it’s worth mentioning here that it was Trump who was very vocal in his defending of Romney against what Reid was claiming.  But I guess this is how Romney shows his appreciation.

And it’s that, by its oh so obvious biases in favor of Rubio, has now managed to join the ranks of the much despised New York Times as being yet another example of journalistic malpractice gone wild.  These days it would seem that we can no longer trust much of what they say, as is the case with the Times, MSNBC, etc., not to be slanted or twisted to whatever degree they think they can get away with without stretching the bounds of absolute incredulity.

And despite being overtly favored by Fox, when it comes to Rubio, all I have to do is to picture him standing there between Chuckie Schumer and ‘Little Dick’ Durbin’ to remind myself that this guy is nothing if not a pathetic fraud.  There is, quite literally, nothing that this guy can say that would ever convince me to vote for him, at least not in the primary.  Now if, by strange chance, he does become our nominee then, I suppose, I’ll have very little choice BUT to vote for him.


media 01

I think, at least judging by any number of recently conducted polls, it’s safe to say that a sizable majority of Americans today view what is laughingly referred to as our “mainstream news” media as little more than a massive propaganda conglomerate essentially under the sole ownership of the Democrat Party.  And as such it should come as a surprise no one that The Washington ‘Com’Post, along with any number of other state-controlled media outlets, did the best they could to make much hay after Wednesday’s shooting in San Bernardino by claiming the attack was somehow the 355th mass shooting in the U.S. since the beginning of 2015. However, the reality is, shall we say, much more nuanced.

Post reporter, and I use the term loosely, Christopher Ingraham makes no attempt to disguise the argument he’s trying to make.  Ingraham wrote, “Speaking after the Colorado Springs shooting last week, President Obama urged Americans to not let this type of violence ‘become normal.’” Ingraham went on to write, “But the data show that this type of incident already is normal. There have been more mass shootings than calendar days so far this year.”  Now of course the implication here is that San Bernardino wasn’t a stand-out event, but instead just the latest in a long string of so-called “mass” shootings. The Post’s narrative was imitated by several other outlets, such as the Los Angeles Times and NBC News.

But, as is usually the, things aren’t not always as those in the “news” would have you believe.  First of all, the Post’s definition of a “mass shooting” isn’t an official one taken from law enforcement, but is instead taken from activists operating on the website Reddit. The activists, who track shootings at the website Shooting Tracker, define a mass shooting as any shooting where 4 or more people are injured or killed.  This is a critical sleight of hand that ends up disguising the reality of most shootings.   While “mass shooting” conjures images of bloodbaths like San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, or Columbine, 147 of the shootings tracked by Shooting Tracker actually didn’t result in a single death.

The truth is that more than 40 percent of all 2015’s “mass shootings” didn’t kill anybody.  Another 104, just under 30 percent, had a single fatality, which means more than two-thirds of all “mass shootings” aren’t even multi-homicide events.  Of the 355 “mass shootings” noted by the Post, only 40 of them (about 11 percent) meet the threshold of a “mass murder” as defined by the FBI, meaning there were at least four fatalities. But even these weren’t all mass shootings in the conventional sense. As pointed out by the Washington Free Beacon, many of them were instead grisly murder-suicides, gangland massacres, or robberies, eliminating at least 15 more “mass shootings” from the list.

So once again we are provided with yet another example of how those in our state-controlled media seem to feel completely justified in their efforts to play loose with the facts if done so in an effort to move forward with the sought after narrative, which in this case is gun control.  According to the FBI there were only 160 “active shooter incidents” between 2000 and 2013, when gang-related shootings were excepted, but those where nobody was shot or killed were included.  The Washington Post uncritically mentioned the high number of shootings while adding no additional context or explanation, and ignoring the nuance of the Shooting Tracker’s numbers.  The Post is but one example of what our ‘news’ media has become.



I thank my lucky stars every single day that I was fortunate to have been able to retire from the U.S. Navy before having to be subjected to serving under Barry “Almighty” as my Commander-in-Chief.  What I have seen taking place since his having assumed that role is primarily the promotion of those who are essentially nothing more than ‘Barry yes-men’ into positions that they are far from qualified to hold.  And it is because of that that Barry has been quite successful in further transitioning our military from a fighting force and into something that is not much more than a social experiment.

Which brings me to retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, who after having retired from the military found a new position as a ‘military analyst’ over there at the Communist News Network, aka CNN.  Hertling recently criticized Trump on “CNN Newsroom With Carol Costello” where he called Trump’s strategy to “bomb the shit out of” ISIS, is “not only immoral but illegal,” and said it would lead to “mass resignations” across the military.  I would argue that if many of today’s top brass were to resign that that might actually be a good thing.  If Trump does win I would suggest that he weed out many of those who Barry promoted.

Anyway the General went on to say, “I’m trying to remain apolitical in this, but it’s increasingly difficult to do that when you hear these kind of statements of individuals who have not been there, who don’t know more than the generals do, and in many cases, don’t know more than the privates do.”  When he says that he’s trying to remain apolitical I have to chuckle.  Because if he’s affiliated himself with CNN, he wasn’t hired on to be apolitical.  So whatever opinions this guy may have about Trump, or any of the other Republicans for that matter, should already be considered as being more than just a little tainted.

So it was a couple of weeks ago now that Trump said, “I know more ISIS than the generals do, believe me. I would bomb the shit out of them. I would just bomb those suckers. And, that’s right, I’d blow up the pipes. I’d blow up the refineries. I’d blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left. And you know what? You’ll get Exxon to come in there, and in two months — have you ever seen these guys how good they are, the great oil companies? They’ll rebuild that sucker brand new. It’ll be beautiful. And I’d ring it, and I’d take the oil.”  But  Hertling suggested Trump “might want to take a visit to Iraq or some of the combat areas and see how things work on the ground. It’s now getting into the scary category.”

Hertling went on to say, “He is talking about things that he knows very little about. It’s not only a little bit scary, but it’s also dangerous, and it’s also immoral. You just don’t do that. Americans don’t fight wars by carpet-bombing nations.”  And he added, “And I think if he were on the ground in Iraq or Syria, and he would see the population that is in dire fear of ISIS and how they are intermingling with the population, I think he would have a better perspective. I think it might also be interesting to get him into that country when other organizations like Mobil or Exxon have attempted to try and repair some of the oil works.”

And in sounding more like he was trying to make excuses for Barry’s ineptitude or his arrogance, Hertling said, “I’d remind folks that less than one percent of the American population has served in the military.”  And he continued by saying, “And even a fewer percentage of the population has served in these kind of areas, so you just don’t know what it’s like. When other countries are under conflict, under siege like this, it’s hard, extremely hard, to re-establish both their economic and their industrial capacity once they are bombed.”  I guess I’m not sure what point it was that the general was trying to make here.

Costello asked Hertling what he would do if Trump came to him with this strategy.  To which CNN’s resident general responded, “I would react by first of all trying to inform him of the laws of land warfare and Geneva Conventions that are involved in this and how it’s not only immoral but illegal to do that.”  He continued, “I would not be a partner to these kind of things, because it would put me as a commander before the Hague Courts. And if he persisted in saying ‘bomb it,’ I think what you would eventually have in the military across the board is mass resignations. And that’s a tough stance to take, Carol, but truthfully, that’s what would occur.”

As I said earlier, it’s my impression, that today many of those currently in the upper echelons of military command are either nothing more than straight-up ‘Barry yes-men’, simply agreeing with whatever he says, or are those who, out of fear of retribution through demotion or forced retirement, are afraid to do what they know is right to keep our country safe.  And if any of these individuals were to feel it necessary to resign, then maybe they should.  And while I fully understand that one must obey one’s superiors, having said that, one has also taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies foreign and domestic.