Posts Tagged ‘Fox News’

Was George Soros Behind the Firing of Bill O’Reilly?

April 20, 2017

BillOreilly

Over the past 20 years at Fox News, I have been extremely proud to launch and lead one of the most successful news programs in history, which has consistently informed and entertained millions of Americans and significantly contributed to building Fox into the dominant news network in television. It is tremendously disheartening that we part ways due to completely unfounded claims. But that is the unfortunate reality many of us in the public eye must live with today. I will always look back on my time at Fox with great pride in the unprecedented success we achieved and with my deepest gratitude to all my dedicated viewers. I wish only the best for Fox News Channel.  – Bill O’ Reilly, April 19, 2017

Speaking of Fox News, they posted the following story on their website…

Fox News is cutting ties with Bill O’Reilly, the biggest star in its 20-year history, after mounting allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior prompted the network to end his program.

“After a thorough and careful review of the allegations,” parent company 21st Century Fox said in a statement, “the company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel.” 

Wednesday’s decision seemed unimaginable a few short weeks ago, given O’Reilly’s long reign as the top-rated host in cable news.

” … the company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel.” – Statement from 21st Century Fox

But the climate shifted dramatically after The New York Times reported on April 1 that O’Reilly or Fox had paid $13 million to settle five cases against him alleging sexual or other harassment. More than 50 advertisers withdrew from his prime-time show, and 21st Century Fox asked a law firm to investigate a complaint from a woman who said O’Reilly dropped efforts to make her a contributor in 2013 after she turned down his invitation to visit his hotel room.

O’Reilly said in a statement Wednesday: “It is tremendously disheartening that we part ways due to completely unfounded claims. But that is the unfortunate reality many of us in the public eye must live with today. I will always look back on my time at Fox with great pride in the unprecedented success we achieved and with my deepest gratitude to all my dedicated viewers. I wish only the best for Fox News Channel.”

O’Reilly, 67, had not previously commented on his status since leaving on vacation last week—he met Pope Francis Wednesday in a VIP line at the Vatican—but his lawyer issued a blistering statement Tuesday accusing his liberal opponents of a “smear campaign.”

The statement said O’Reilly “has been subjected to a brutal campaign of character assassination that is unprecedented in post-McCarthyist America.”

Starting Monday, Fox will air Tucker Carlson’s show an hour earlier, in O’Reilly’s 8 p.m. ET slot, and move the popular ensemble show “The Five” from 5 to 9 p.m. On May 1, “Five” member Eric Bolling will debut a one-hour program at 5 p.m., and Martha MacCallum will make her “First 100 Days” show permanent at 7 p.m.

O’Reilly’s departure comes nine months after Fox News founder Roger Ailes was forced out as chairman following a sexual harassment lawsuit by former host Gretchen Carlson and allegations by at least a half-dozen women, all of which he denied. One of them was Megyn Kelly, who also clashed with O’Reilly and who decided to leave Fox for NBC last December.

The net result is not just a transformation of Fox’s prime-time lineup, which has trounced the cable competition, but an effort by Rupert Murdoch and his sons, James and Lachlan, to change the company’s culture and make clear that harassment is unacceptable. That became increasingly difficult, and spawned resentment among some female staffers, as O’Reilly’s problems became a dominant news story.

Why did over 50 advertisers, all of the sudden, decide to pull out from sponsoring The O’Reilly Factor?

Another Former Fox News Host, Glenn Beck,  has what he claims is evidence as to who the culprit is, which he revealed yesterday on his radio program.

TheBlaze.com reports that

An email obtained by conservative radio host Glenn Beck suggests that progressive media watchdog group Media Matters orchestrated the advertiser exodus from embattled Fox News host Bill O’Reilly’s program.

“For years,” the email begins, “Bill O’Reilly has been one of the worst purveyors of misinformation on Fox News. A serial misinformer, pushing many of the most extreme, sexist, racist, homophobic, and xenophobic conservative theories on TV.”

The correspondence was written by Mary Pat Bonner, president of the Bonner Group.  According to the New York Times, Bonner served as a “donor adviser” to former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Through her firm, Bonner connects big money donors to liberal groups seeking donations. Bonner’s contracts give her company a sizable commission — around 12.5 percent — on any money she brings in. In addition to Clinton, the Bonner Group has also advised Media Matters and the American Bridge super PAC.

“The Bonner Group gets us the best fundraising product for the lowest cost,” David Brock, founder of Media Matters and American Bridge, told the Times. “In my experience, the commission incentivizes the fundraiser to meet the ambitious goals we set.”

In the email, which was sent April 13, Bonner heralds the success of her firm and Media Matters’ “advertiser education campaign” against O’Reilly.

“We are currently at a critical juncture in this campaign,” she wrote, before inviting recipients to join a couple of “update calls” on Thursday and Friday.

Bonner’s email was revealed just hours after one of O’Reilly’s lawyers, Marc Kasowitz, claimed that the Fox anchor “has been subjected to a brutal campaign of character assassination that is unprecedented in post-McCarthyist America.”

“This law firm has uncovered evidence that the smear campaign is being orchestrated by far-left organizations bent on destroying O’Reilly for political and financial reasons,” he continued. “That evidence will be put forth shortly and it is irrefutable.”

Dozens of advertisers have pulled their commercials from O’Reilly’s 8 p.m. time slot in the weeks since the Times reported that O’Reilly and 21st Century Fox, Fox News’ parent company, have settled to the tune of $13 million with at least five women who have accused the network host of sexual harassment.

And according to Media Matters, the number of brands that have shifted ads away from “The O’Reilly Factor” has topped 80, “with dozens more quietly taking the action or keeping them off in the first place.”

Angelo Carusone, president of Media Matters,  said “many expect more women will come forward” with allegations against O’Reilly. He also asserted Fox News Co-President Bill Shine “will go too.” Carusone offered no evidence to support either claim.

“What’s happening now is a giant smear campaign, and they work,” Beck said on his radio program Wednesday morning, later adding that the left is “splitting the conservative movement and they’re taking the bear out of the door.”

The Wall Street Journal, which is owned by News Corp, a media conglomeration founded by Fox News CEO Rupert Murdoch, reported Tuesday night that the news network is preparing to sever ties with O’Reilly.

The Journal’s report comes the week after news broke that 21st Century Fox CEO James Murdoch was reportedly ready to cut O’Reilly, who is on vacation until April 24. However, at the time, Rupert Murdoch, James’ father, and 21st Century Fox Co-Chairman Lachlan Murdoch, James’ older brother, were “more inclined” to stand by the host.

But now it appears the Murdochs are nearing a unanimous decision. And in Beck’s mind, it’s all about money — not principles.

“They’re making the decision based on money, and money has nothing to do with principle,” he said, after earlier telling listeners he “would not be saying this if I had personal information” that the accusations against O’Reilly were true.

If the harassment claims end up being true, Beck said he would be “highly disappointed” with O’Reilly. “If there is evidence that something happened, that’s something different,” he said.

And, as goofy as Beck has become, he could still be considered an expert on the character of Bill O’Reilly, as he and O’Reilly used to go on tour a few years back with a two man show, much like O’Reilly and Comedian/Political Pundit Dennis Miller have been doing the last few years.

If the 6’4″ O’Reilly actually has been sexually harassing co-workers and program guests, then he certainly deserved to be given the boot from the Murdochs.

However, let’s look at this from a political angle…

Bill O’Reilly has propelled Fox News to it’s position as the Number One Cable News Network in America. He has indeed been the Top Dog at Fox and the King of the Night Time News Programs for over two decades.

If you were the Far Left Vanguard at Media Matters and their Benefactor, Former Nazi Stool Pigeon, George Soros, and you wanted to take down Fox News and silence or at least damage the Conservative Message that it brings into millions of American Homes every night, what would you do?

Wouldn’t you try to get its Number One Program off the air?

The message of Conservatism is not easily silenced, so…

If you can’t silence the message, silence the messenger.

MoveOn.org, Media Matters, and George Soros are already in the midst of an all-out war in their attempt to drive President Donald J. Trump out of office by any means necessary.

In fact, they already tried using allegations of sexual impropriety against him…and failed miserably.

Given their track record, the allegations that Glenn Beck made yesterday do not seem far-fetched at all.

Perhaps Beck experienced a brief return to sanity yesterday.

Who will Soros and his minions go after next…Sean Hannity?

Ronald Reagan, during an interview with Mike Wallace on 12/14/75, quipped…

“You know, someone very profoundly once said many years ago that if fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism.”

Darned if he wasn’t right.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Liberals Make Fun of Trump for Referring to Sweden in Melbourne Speech. Here’s What They’re NOT Telling You…

February 20, 2017

Weak-Spot-600-LI.jpg

During his speech in Melbourne, Florida on Saturday Afternoon, President Trump made a remark about the country of Sweden that Liberals all day yesterday made fun of. Here is what he said:

“We’ve got to keep our country safe,” he said. “You look at what’s happening in Germany. You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what’s happening in Brussels. You look at what’s happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris.”

What the President was referring to was an interview by Fox News Host Tucker Carlson in which he talked to Ami Horowitz, a documentary filmmaker who has recently spent a great deal of time investigating Sweden and the current hidden refugee crisis.

Within the last 2 years, thanks to the influx of Muslim Refugees, Sweden has become “the Rape Capital of the World.”

The Daily Caller published an article about the situation on 10/23/15, which reported on this developing crisis…

As Europe confronts the social and financial realities of its largesse in opening its doors to millions of Muslim immigrants, it is time the tale of two countries is told.

The tale is an important one as the two countries involved have taken completely different approaches to Muslim immigration and the preservation of their own culture. As such, both provide examples of the proverbial canary in the coal mine on this matter.

Sweden began opening its doors to Muslim immigrants in the 1970s. Today it pays a high price for having done so. The group suffering the severest consequences of such an open door policy has been Swedish women.

As Muslim men immigrated to Sweden, they brought with them an Islamic culture sanctioning rape. It is a culture bad enough inherently in the treatment of its own women. Under sharia, Muslim women serve little more purpose beyond catering to their husbands’ sexual demands. A non-submissive wife runs the risk of being raped by her husband.

But under sharia, this rape culture also impacts upon Swedish women as they are “infidels” and, as such, are — according to Allah’s teachings — sanctioned targets for rape by Muslim men. Such an Islamic belief system has born witness to a drastic increase in rapes in Sweden — more than a thousand fold — since first opening its doors to Muslim immigration.

A 1996 Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention report bears this out. It noted that Muslim immigrants from North Africa were 23 times more likely to commit rape than Swedish men. It is no wonder why today Sweden is deemed the rape capital of the Western world.

Even more shocking, however, is the political correctness overshadowing the reporting of these crimes. Sensitive about accusations of Islamophobia, the Swedish press refuses to sound a warning alarm for native women about who these sexual predators are. Thus, when a Muslim commits a rape, the media only refers to him as a Swedish male.

But this failure to shine the light on Muslim male rapists leaves them hiding in the shadows to commit even more egregious sex crimes.  With no fear of accountability, these predators have adopted a pack mentality. A crime non-existent in Sweden in the 1970s is now commonplace today as the country has become a breeding ground for gang rapes.

These “Syrian Refugees” have caused mass chaos in Europe, pushing the European Union to the brink of implosion.

And yet, the self-identified “Smartest People in the Room” responded to Trump’s comment from Saturday as if he was crazy.

Trump was correct.

It’s the Liberals who are not concerned about the “Refugees” who are crazy or suffer from a terminal case of naiveté born out of arrogance.

Just who are these Refugees…really?

When the “Refugees” began their invasion of Europe, Ben Shapiro, writing for Breitbart News, asked and answered that important question…

Who Are These Refugees? That competition to accept refugees would be fine if we knew that the refugees plan on assimilating into Western notions of civilized society, and if we knew that they were indeed victims of radical Muslim atrocities. Unfortunately, we know neither. It is deeply suspicious that major Muslim countries that do not border Syria refuse to take in large numbers of refugees, except for Algeria and Egypt.

Turkey has taken in nearly two million refugees, according to the United Nations, and keeps the vast majority in refugee camps — a typical practice in a region that has kept Arab refugees from the 1948 war of Israeli independence in Arab-run camps for seven decades. Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq have taken in hundreds of thousands of refugees as well, but all border the chaotic, collapsing Syria, and thus have limited choice in the matter. Iran has taken in no refugees. Neither have Pakistan, Indonesia, or any of the other dozens of member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain all refused to take any refugees, and explicitly cited the risk of terrorists among the refugees, according to The Guardian (UK).

These fears are not without merit, as even Obama administration officials have acknowledged: back in February, director of the National Counterterrorism Center Nicholas Rasmussen called Syrian refugees “clearly a population of concern.” FBI Assistant Director Michael Steinbach explained, “Databases don’t [have] the information on those individuals, and that’s the concern. On Tuesday, State Department spokesman John Kirby told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that terrorist infiltration was “a possibility. I mean, you can’t, you can’t dismiss that out of hand.” He then added, “Obviously, if you look at those images though, it’s pretty clear that the great majority of these people are innocent families.”

Actually, images show a disproportionate number of young males in crowds of refugees. And those images reflect statistical reality: according to the United Nations Human Rights Commission, Mediterranean Sea refugees are overwhelmingly male: just 13 percent are women, and just 15 percent are children. The other 72 percent are men. Compare that population to the refugees in the Middle East from the same conflicts: 49.5 percent male, and 50.5 percent female, with 38.5 percent under the age of 12. Those are wildly different populations.

It was also reported that these “refugees” left a trail of waste, human and otherwise, in their wake.

In other words, these guys believe that hygiene is a girl that they used to “date” back home.

Classy, huh?

And, these are the same people that Obama was importing into our Sovereign Nation without vetting.

And now, Trump wants to be more careful as to whom we let enter into OUR country and somehow, Modern American Liberals are proclaiming him to be a “bigot” because he wants to protect us, including American mothers and daughters from the Sexual Barbarism which Sweden is now experiencing?

Hey, Pajamaboys…

Tell me once again WHO’S crazy?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Trump Vs. the Activist Media: Newt Lays a Verbal Smackdown on Megyn Kelly

October 26, 2016

14731251_10205385959927806_8491863673114560831_n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I remember when the Fox News Channel first burst on the scene on October 7, 1996, setting the Liberal Establishment and the Main Stream Media on their heels, by offering “Fair and Balanced” News Reporting.

Nowadays, it appears that at least one of their Evening “Anchors” has joined the ranks of the Main Stream Media, and has gone from reporting the news, to attempting to shape it.

Breitbart.com reports that

Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took on host Megyn Kelly for what Gingrich described to be a fascination with sex and that she didn’t care about policy.

Exchange as follows:

NEWT GINGRICH: Let me point out something to you: The three major networks spent 23 minutes attacking Donald Trump that night, and 57 seconds on Hillary Clinton’s secret speeches. You don’t think that is a scale of bias worthy of Pravda?

(CROSSTALK)

MEGYN KELLY: If Trump is a sexual predator, that is–

GINGRICH: He’s not a sexual predator. You can’t say that. You could not defend that statement.

 
KELLY: I have not taken a position on it.

GINGRICH: I’m sick and tired of people like you using inflammatory language that is not true.

KELLY: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, you have no idea whether it is true or not. What we know–

GINGRICH: Neither do you.

KELLY: I’m not taking a position on it.

GINGRICH: Yes you are. When you used the words, you took a position. It is very unfair of you to do that, Megyn.

KELLY: Incorrect.

GINGRICH: That is exactly the bias people are upset by.

KELLY: I think that your defensiveness on this speaks volumes, sir.

GINGRICH: Let me suggest to you —

KELLY: No let me make my point. What I said if if Trump is a sexual predator, than it is a big story. And what we saw on that tape was Trump himself saying he liked to grab women by the genitals, and kiss them against their will. Then we saw 10 women come forward after he denied it at a debate … He denies it all, which is his right. We don’t know what the truth is. My point to you is, as a media story, we don’t get to say the 10 women are liars. We have to cover that story.

GINGRICH: Sure, so it took 23 minutes for the networks to cover that story. And Hillary Clinton had a secret speech in Brazil to a bank that pays her $225,000 saying that her dream is an open border where 600 million people could come to America, that is not worth covering?

Do you want me to go back to the tapes of your show recently? You are fascinated with sex and you don’t care about public policy.

KELLY: Me, really?

GINGRICH: That’s what I get out of watching you tonight.

KELLY: You know what, Mr. Speaker? I’m not fascinated by sex, but I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we’re getting in the Oval Office.

GINGRICH: And therefore, we’re going to send Bill Clinton back to the East Wing, because you are worried about a sexual predator. Do you want to comment on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?

KELLY: We on ‘The Kelly File’ have covered that story as well, sir.

GINGRICH: I want to hear you say the word. Say “Bill Clinton is a sexual predator.” I dare you. Say “Bill Clinton, sexual predator.”

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: Mr. Speaker, we have covered that. We on “The Kelly File” have covered the Bill Clinton story as well. We’ve hosted Kathleen Willey. But he is not on the ticket.
Kelly ended the segment by telling Gingrich he needed to take his “anger issues” and “spend some time working on them.”

Ms. Kelly is not alone in her quest to bring down the Republican Candidate for President.

According to newsbusters.org,

In the twelve weeks since the party conventions concluded in late July, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to a new study by the Media Research Center (MRC).

In addition, the networks spent far more airtime focusing on the personal controversies involving Trump (440 minutes) than about similar controversies involving Clinton (185 minutes). Donald Trump’s treatment of women was given 102 minutes of evening news airtime, more than that allocated to discussing Clinton’s e-mail scandal (53 minutes) and the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play scandals (40 minutes) combined.

For this study, the MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). The networks devoted 1,191 minutes to the presidential campaign during this period, or nearly 29 percent of all news coverage.

Our measure of campaign spin was designed to isolate the networks’ own slant, not the back-and-forth of the campaign trail. Thus, our analysts ignored soundbites which merely showcased the traditional party line (Republicans supporting Trump and bashing Clinton, and vice versa), and instead tallied evaluative statements which imparted a clear positive or negative tone to the story. Such statements may have been presented as quotes from non-partisan talking heads such as experts or voters, quotes from partisans who broke ranks (Republicans attacking Trump or Democrats criticizing Clinton), or opinionated statements from the reporter themselves.

Additionally, we separated personal evaluations of each candidate from statements about their prospects in the campaign horse race (i.e., standings in the polls, chances to win, etc.). While such comments can have an effect on voters (creating a bandwagon effect for those seen as winning, or demoralizing the supports of those portrayed as losing), they are not “good press” or “bad press” as understood by media scholars as far back as Michael Robinson’s groundbreaking research on the 1980 presidential campaign.

The results show neither candidate was celebrated by the media (as Obama was in 2008), but network reporters went out of their way to hammer Trump day after day, while Clinton was largely out of their line of fire.

Our analysts found 184 opinionated statements about Hillary Clinton, split between 39 positive statements (21%) vs. 145 negative (79%). Those same broadcasts included more than three times as many opinionated statements about Trump, 91 percent of which (623) were negative vs. just nine percent positive (63).

Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton — for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her e-mail server — network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage.

This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying “the politics of fear,” or a “dangerous” and “vulgar” “misogynistic bully” who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate. Reporters also bluntly called out Trump for lying in his public remarks in a way they never did with Clinton, despite her own robust record of false statements.

As for those “horse race” assessments that we excluded from our “good press/bad press” measure, those were decidedly anti-Trump as well. Out of 569 such statements about the health or prospects of Trump’s campaign, 85% (486) were negative, vs. 15% (83) that were positive. For Clinton, the spin was reversed: out of 432 assessments of her status in the race, 62% (268) were positive, vs. just 38% (164) that were negative.

Thus, judging by their own coverage, network reporters have consistently painted Clinton as the most likely to win, but they have inexplicably spent most of their time trying to dismantle the underdog in the race while giving the frontrunner much lighter scrutiny.

Overall, the networks spent about 40 percent more airtime covering Trump (785 minutes) than they did on Clinton (478 minutes). Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson received just over nine minutes of coverage, while Green candidate Jill Stein and independent conservative candidate Evan McMullin each received less than one minute of airtime.

As noted above, more than half of Trump’s coverage (440 minutes, or 56%) focused on the various controversies surrounding his candidacy, while only about 38 percent of Clinton’s airtime was spent on her controversies (185 minutes).By far, the top topic since the party conventions has been the issue of Donald Trump’s treatment of women, especially the 2005 Access Hollywood tape (which received nearly 50 minutes of evening news coverage) and the unproven allegations from several women that he engaged in inappropriate conduct in the past (26 minutes).

Add it all up, and Trump’s alleged sexist behavior or rhetoric has totaled 102 minutes of news coverage since the conventions. In contrast, references to Bill Clinton’s past treatment of women, and Hillary Clinton’s role in covering up her husband’s wrongdoing, amounted to less than seven minutes of coverage during this same period, a roughly 15-to-1 disparity.

Other Trump controversies were given robust coverage: the issue of his tax returns (33 minutes), his concern that the November election could be “rigged” (27 minutes), and suggestions that Trump and his aides are too close to Putin’s Russia (22 minutes).

In contrast, controversies involving Hillary Clinton received far less attention. Her “basket of deplorables” comment received just seven minutes of total coverage, while barely two minutes (134 seconds) was spent talking about her handling of the 2012 attack in Benghazi when she was Secretary of State.

Bill Clinton’s crack that ObamaCare was a “crazy system” was limited to just 140 seconds of evening news coverage, even though it signaled the kind of intra-party split that would surely have received far more coverage if it had been a Republican vs. a Republican.

Just last week, a Quinnipiac poll found that more than half of all voters (55%) thought the media’s coverage had been biased against Trump. With coverage like this, the question is, what are the other 45 percent thinking?

Evidently, they’re not paying attention.

For years, the Main Stream Media has been in bed with corrupt politicians and those who walk roam the Halls of Power with impunity (Mr. Soros to the Courtesy Desk, please.)

While touting objectivity, they have often fallen way short of that goal.

The Media really came into its own during the 80’s, with the advent of Cable Television, the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and the ascension and election of President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

The advocacy of all things Liberal by every Cable News Channel, became very apparent, as they attacked the greatest president of this generation, mercilessly, giving no quarter.

I believe that Reagan’s election was a wake up call to the MSM. They realized that, if left to their own devices, the American Public would elect a Conservative as President, every time. And, they just couldn’t have that. They were already in too deep to their Democratic, Progressive Masters.

So, America’s Media forsook their objectivity, choosing to help to shape current events, instead of just reporting on them, in an effort to produce outcomes which would be most beneficial to the Progressive Cause.

The Fox News Channel filled a void that had been created by the Main Stream Media’s own biased hubris.

Later, after propping up Barack Hussein Obama and getting him re-elected, this hubris gave the Main Stream Media an exaggerated sense of self-importance, as to their role in our society.

Their Achilles’ Heel , the before-mentioned hubris, blinded them to the potential of the New Media…and, that has been their undoing.

As has been affirmed to me lately, during my surfing of the web, including Facebook Political Pages and websites, Modern American Liberals, including those in the Main Stream Media, constantly live in a state of denial.

They respond as if you have told them that you shot Ol’ Yeller, when you inform them that Liberalism is still the minority political belief in America, even (and especially) after the 7 1/2 year reign of King Barack The First.

This salient fact explains why CNN and MSNBC constantly trail Fox News in the television ratings polls.

It also explains their ongoing massive propping up through the use of blatant propaganda of the Presidential Campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Just like the cockamamie idea to allow biological men in women’s public restrooms, the idea of allowing a morally and ethically challenged congenital liar with obvious serious health issues, who is as far removed philosophically from the overwhelming majority of Americans, that she might as well be the President of China, XI Jinping’s Handmaiden, makes average Americas out here in America’s Heartland want to hurl.

Which, by the way, is quite evident when you compare actual images of the size of Donald J. Trump’s overflowing Campaign Rallies , numbering in the thousands, compared to the under-attended ones of Hillary Clinton, which are lucky to draw one hundred.

Principled reporters, such as the late Andrew Breitbart and Michelle Malkin, now working for Conservative Review, turned up the heat on the MSM, by providing an alternative source through which Americans can receive news, unfiltered by those in the Halls of Power.

Unfortunately for the MSM , as the last several months have shown, and as I have documented, Americans have become our own “reporters” thanks to the “New Media”. Americans are now living in a  time when the Main Stream Media’s blatant propaganda is no longer believed at face value, as the evidence which refutes it is appearing in the live videos and photographs being shared on Facebook and other Social Media.

And, like the little Dutch Boy, the MSM does not know which hole to plug, in the leaking dam, first.

In their frenzied desperate attempt to stop what now appears (judging from the size of his Campaign Rallies and the information gleaned from Early Voting across the country) to be the inevitability of a Trump Victory in November, the Main Stream Media has chosen to verify blatantly false Liberal Opinions as being “Facts”.

Megyn Kelly, since the Political Ascension of Donald J. Trump, has chosen to eschew the “Fair and Balanced” Reporting that vaulted Fox to the top of the Cable News Ratings, instead, opting to join the baying “newshounds” of the Main Stream Media in their quest to bring down the Republican Candidate by any means necessary.

Unfortunately for Ms. Kelly, her strategy has backfired on her miserably, costing her rating points and allowing Sean Hannity to take over the lead among Fox News’ Evening Programs.

Just like the Internet Trolls, who invade Facebook Political Pages and Political Websites, in order to disrupt conversation and call attention to themselves, the MSM, including Ms. Kelly as well, through the creation of their own facts, have permanently damaged their own credibility, quite probably beyond all repair.

Because, to put it quite simply, once you torque off the American Public, you never get them back.

Just ask the Dixie Chicks.

Until He Comes,

KJ 

 

 

Victory Through “Social Media”: The Tanking of Target and the Clinton Campaign (A KJ Saturday Morning Analysis)

August 27, 2016

2014-05-06-socialmediaTHESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER,” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God. – Thomas Paine, “The Crisis”, December 23, 1776

Fortune.com recently reported that

Target (tgt) is spending millions to add private single-stall locking bathrooms at many of its stores as it looks to reverse a drop in shopper traffic, some of which may have been caused by the retailer’s transgender-friendly bathroom policy.

In April, the discounter said on a blog that transgender workers and customers could use the restroom aligned with the gender they identify with, wading into a national controversy and raising the ire of part of its clientele. The move led to a purported boycott of Target by at least one million customers, many of whom argued that Target’s policy would increase sexual assaults.
 
While many retailers have the same policy, including Macy’s m and Barnes & Noble bks , Target planted its flag on the issue in a blog post in which it explained the policy by saying “inclusivity is a core belief at Target.”
 
Though company executives downplayed the impact of the backlash in May when discussing first-quarter results, and again on Wednesday to go over its second-quarter numbers, which included its first drop in shopper traffic since early 2014, Target is making concessions to customers displeased with the bathroom policy. So Target is spending $20 million to add private bathrooms that can be locked.
 
“It’s clear that some of our guests like and some dislike our inclusive bathroom policy,” Target chief financial officer Cathy Smith told reporters on a media briefing. The vast majority of Target stores already have the single-stall bathrooms but the retailer will add them to more locations by November, and then again after the holiday season, which it doesn’t want to disrupt with repairs, and be done by March.

Though Smith did not say whether the backlash had cost it some business, the announcement of the bathroom policy came at a time pressure on Target was already building from a number of directions. For one thing, Target lost quite a bit of shopper traffic in the second quarter because of the disruption from the transition of the pharmacy business it sold last year to CVS Health cvs . (CVS has undertaken an aggressive marketing campaign to lure customers to its pharmacies within Target stores.) Target also got dinged by a 20% drop in Apple aapl products and customers not taking to its fresh grocery offering.
 
So the last thing Target needed was to alienate any of customer base, given that it is a $75 billion-a-year retailer that caters to a wide swathe of America, including socially conservative shoppers.
 
“We are not satisfied with our second quarter traffic and sales performance,” Smith said. Stepping back a bit on a controversial move is one way Target is trying to fix that. 

What has happened to Target is the same thing that always happens to businesses who decide to acquiesce to the demands of the vocal political minority in this country known as Modern American Liberals.

The “Tanking of Target” is a direct result of an overestimation of the economic impact of American Liberals and an underestimation of the economic impact of average Americans.

As Rev. Franklin Graham recently said,

When over a million people sign a pledge to boycott, that’s a loud and clear message Target shouldn’t have a problem understanding — biological men do not need access into women’s bathrooms or dressing rooms.

By the way, the thunderclap that you just heard was the sound of the  butt cheeks of the radical segment of that 24% of America’s population that I just referred to, slamming together in unison.

You often hear of these activists, who are a part of the 24% of , who identify themselves as “Liberals”, referred to as the “Hive-mind”, because most of the time, they present themselves in public and on the internet, including Facebook Political Pages, as being in lockstep with one another, regurgitating “the Party Line”, about each and every Hot Button Political Issue, resembling the brainwashed Proletariat of the old Soviet Union.

As  has been affirmed to me lately, during my surfing of the web, including Facebook Political Pages and websites, Modern American Liberals constantly live in a state of denial.

They respond as if you have told them that you shot Ol’ Yeller, when you inform them that Liberalism is still the minority political belief in America, even (and especially) after the 7 1/2 year reign of King Barack The First.

This salient fact explains why CNN and MSNBC constantly trail Fox News in the television ratings polls.

It also explains their ongoing massive propping up through the use of blatant propaganda of the Presidential Campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Just like the cockamamie idea to allow biological men in women’s public restrooms, the idea of allowing a morally and ethically challenged congenital liar with obvious serious health issues, who is as far removed philosophically from the overwhelming majority of Americans, that she might as well be the President of China, XI Jinping’s Handmaiden, makes average Americas out here in America’s Heartland want to hurl.

Which, by the way, is quite evident when you compare actual images of the size of Donald J. Trump’s overflowing Campaign , numbering in the thousands, compared to the under-attended ones of Hillary Clinton, which are lucky to draw one hundred.

When our Founding Fathers sat down to provide form and substance to the laws and procedures for governing this new country, which they had fought and won a bloody war over, by pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, they were very aware of the price of tyranny.

They determined that this new nation would be a Constitutional Republic, having had their fill of monarchies.

In order to ensure that no leader of this new nation would go mad with power, and become a tyrannical despot, our Founders set up a System of Checks and Balances, overseen by Three Branches of Government: the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial, with each branch having a distinct and LIMITED  role.

The situation, which we as a nation, find ourselves in today, is one which our Founding Fathers sought valiantly to avoid.

Thanks to an Imperious Presidency, we are suffering under a “Tyranny of the Minority”.

This minority is not based on color, rather, it is one based on political ideology and self-interest.

As the past several years have showed, this minority, buoyed by money from this “sponsors”, including the Halls of Power in Washington, DC, will shut down anyone who threatens “what they’ve got” by ANY MEANS NECESSARY, including political devices and beliefs, which we, as a country, have gone to war against in the past.

My late father was one of thousands of brave young American men, who landed on the beaches of Normandy , France on June 6, 1944, in the military operation which broke the backs of the Nazis, leading to the end of World War II,  now known as D-Day.

World War II was a war against Fascism.

What is Fascism? Per merriam-webster.com, it is a

political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that America is now fighting a new war against fascism.

It’s not a war that is being fought with guns and bullets, But instead with state referendums, Congressional votes, Executive Orders, judicial activism, and FAR Left-sponsored and organized Political Activists.

And, it’s not our Brightest and Best who are dying on this field of battle, but rather, it is our Constitutional Freedoms which are dying an ignoble death, pierced by the arrows of socialism and political correctness.

By now, there’s some out there in the audience saying, “Oh Lord, the crazy old cracker’s overreacting again.”

No, Skippy, I’m not.

If you try to talk to a Liberal about this New Fascism, they will deny that there is any fascism going on at all. In fact, they will tell you that this is “the will of the people” and they will site Democratically-stacked push polls in order to back their opinion up.

Modern American Liberals are hoping to continue this “New Fascism” through a “Coronation” on Inauguration Day 2017 of Hillary Clinton.

Unfortunately for them, as the last few weeks have shown, and as I have documented, Americans have become our own “reporters” thanks to the “New Media”.

Americans are now living in a  time when the Main Stream Media’s blatant propaganda is no longer believed at face value, as the evidence which refutes it is appearing in the live videos and photographs being shared on Facebook and other Social Media.

Average Americans are winning the war against the “New Fascism” of the Tyranny of the Minority by the sharing of information through Social Media.

As the Executives at Target found out the hard way,

Information is the oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped by barbed wire, it wafts across the electrified borders. – Ronald Reagan
 

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

The 2016 Presidential Election: MSM Propaganda VS Social Media and the “Speed of Reality”

August 2, 2016

19300001338456131339201169760propaganda:  the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. ( “Media’s Use of Propaganda to Persuade People’s Attitude, Beliefs and Behaviors”, web.stanford.edu )

Last night, Realclearpolitics.com reported the following story…

Donald Trump hits the media, particularly CNN, ‘the Clinton News Network,’ at a campaign rally in Harrisburg, Penn. Monday night.

“We have a media that is so dishonest,” Trump said. “These are among the most dishonest people you will ever, ever meet.”

“We are going to punch through the media,” he said. “We have to.”

Trump tonight:

TRUMP: These are among the most dishonest people you will ever, ever meet. These people — you know, I’ve had days where I have said, ‘Boy, this was a great day. I’ll look forward to seeing it tonight or tomorrow and it’s brutal.’ And I say, ‘What happened?’

We are going to punch through the media. We have to! The New York Times is totally dishonest. Totally dishonest. The Washington Post has been a little bit better lately but not good. By the way The New York Times, which is failing badly. I call it ‘The Failing The New York Times.’ Every story that they write is a hit job. I could do the greatest thing in the history of the world. I could come up with a cure for the most horrible disease in the world and they give me a front-page horrible, horrible story. The New York Times is very dishonest but it will be out of business soon. I hope. It will be out of business. It will. Really dishonest reporters. Not all of them, but most of them.

And CNN. CNN is like all Trump all the time. All Trump all the time. You walk out of an interview and you say, ‘that was a good interview’ and then you get killed for the rest of the weekend. So they are so biased toward Crooked Hillary. You know they call it: CNN, Clinton News Network. CNN. Clinton News Network. Totally dishonest. But hopefully a lot of people aren’t watching it.

Don’t worry, Mr. Trump. We aren’t.

Now that the Democratic National Convention is over, Americans have returned to their normal viewing habits. Which means that Fox News is once again kicking the Clinton News Network’s tail., as the stats from Friday, July 29, 2016 clearly show…

Total day: FNC: 1.659 | CNN: 941 | MSNBC: 893 | HLN: 209

Primetime: FNC: 2.373 | CNN: 1.187 | MSNBC: 1.451 | HLN: 280

As I have written before, thanks to today’s 24-Hour News Cycle, Cable News Network Reporters have tossed broadcast journalism out the window in favor of political activism.

And, with the undisputed fact that the overwhelming majority of cable news reporters are flaming Liberals, this means that  news favorable to Hillary Clinton and detrimental to Donald J. Trump will be what Americans are most likely to see when they turn on CNN, MSNBC, and the News Programs of the Broadcast Channels, CBS, NBS, and ABC.

Fox News continues to lead in the ratings for the cable news channels because, quite simply, they are more “fair and balanced” than CNN and MSNBC.

Conservatism remains the political ideology of the majority of Americans.

Try as they might, Liberal reporters and pundits cannot force Americans, especially those of us in “the Red States”, to believe the propaganda that they are peddling.

Even, when a push poll by CBS/The New York Times proclaims that The Queen of Mean, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has taken a lead after the  Police Line-up that was DNC 2016.

We would rather believe our own eyes.

For example, after cancelling a stop at a furniture maker in Cleveland, Ohio, according to Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit,

CowG64-W8AA-HL-…Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton made a stop Sunday to speak at Imani Temple Ministry.

Less than 100 people were there to see her preach from the pulpit.
(The event was in Cleveland not Columbus.)

th5RM6A420 Meanwhile, Trump spoke to a packed house at his Cleveland Rally.

 

 

 

In this age of instantaneous communication via Social Media, Americans have become their own on-the-scene-reporters, often foiling the planned use of propaganda by outlets such as CNN, simply by being there and sharing the event with their friends on Facebook or Instagram.

That contrary and factual information is then disseminated through the use of that same “New Media” to reach Americans from coast-to-cast, nullifying slanted stories delivered through the Traditional Media, sometimes even before they are released.

In this wonderful Technological Age that we are living in, average Americans have the ability to share information at the “speed of reality” itself. A fact which is the cause of great consternation and falling ratings to those news outlets who are attempting to be the Vanguard who ushers in a Clinton Presidency.

Marshall McLuhan once wrote that

The Medium is the message.

He was saying that mass communication influences the way that we see things and that those bringing it have to be perceived as being trustworthy in order to be believed by those receiving their “message”.

Unfortunately for CNN, their history of pandering to Liberal Causes, the Democratic Party, and the Clintons, in particular, is well-documented and has led to their, as Trump remarked, being known as “The Clinton News Network”.

Equally unfortunate for them and the rest of the Liberal Media, is that fact that Americans have become our own news reporters.

And therefore, propaganda does not work as well as it used to.

…not as long as Americans stay informed.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

March 3, 2016: The Day That The Republican Establishment “Mooned” Its Base

March 4, 2016

GOP-Great-600-LI-1Indeed, we gave birth to an entirely new concept in man’s relation to man. We created government as our servant, beholden to us and possessing no powers except those voluntarily granted to it by us. Now a self-anointed elite in our nation’s capital would have us believe we are incapable of guiding our own destiny. They practice government by mystery, telling us it’s too complex for our understanding. Believing this, they assume we might panic if we were to be told the truth about our problems. – Ronald Wilson Reagan, March 31, 1976

In the middle of a day which saw the Grand Old Party attack its own Political Primaries Front-runner, with a savagery unseen during the 7-year reign of Petulant President Pantywaist, the following self-serving example of the Vichy Republicans’ oblivious nature broke on CNN.com:

Washington (CNN) – Mitt Romney has instructed his closest advisers to explore the possibility of stopping Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention, a source close to Romney’s inner circle says.

The 2012 GOP nominee’s advisers are examining what a fight at the convention might look like and what rules might need revising. 

“It sounds like the plan is to lock the convention,” said the source.

Romney is focused on suppressing Trump’s delegate count to prevent him from accumulating the 1,237 delegates he needs to secure the nomination.

But implicit in Romney’s request to his team to explore the possibility of a convention fight is his willingness to step in and carry the party’s banner into the fall general election as the Republican nominee. Another name these sources mentioned was House Speaker Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate in 2012. 

You don’t have to read too far between the lines of the speech Romney gave Thursday at the University of Utah to see the imprint of this plan. He urged voters to support the candidate most likely to prevent Trump from racking up delegates in their states — saying he’d back Florida Sen. Marco Rubio if he were voting in the Sunshine State, Gov. John Kasich if he were voting in Ohio, or Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the states where he polls as Trump’s strongest foe.

“If the other candidates can find common ground, I believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism,” Romney said.

According to the source, Romney does not expect Rubio, Cruz or Kasich to emerge as the single candidate that can accumulate 1,237 delegates and outright defeat Trump before the convention. So the only way to rob Trump of a victory would be to keep him from reaching that magic 1,237 number.

For those of you who don’t know, a brokered political convention comes about when no single candidate has secured a pre-existing majority of delegates (whether those selected by primary elections and caucuses, or superdelegates) before the first official vote for a political party’s presidential candidate at its nominating convention.

In other words, the Leaders of the Political Party choose their Presidential Candidate, regardless of the wishes of the American Voters.

In Former Governor and Presidential Election Loser. Mitt Romney’s scripted attack on Trump yesterday, he spoke, to a great extent, in the same didactic tone in which Barack Hussein Obama has insulted, cajoled, and lectured us in for the past 7 years.

The day-long attack continued last night, during the Republican Candidate Debate, held by Fox News at the historic Fox Theatre, as The Washington Post describes:

Billionaire Donald Trump entered Thursday night’s GOP debate as the race’s front-runner — but he spent much of the night on the defensive, struggling to explain his positions to skeptical moderators, arguing with his rivals, even trying to drown out their arguments with shouted insults.

“I won 10 states,” Trump said at one point, reasserting his dominance on a night when it seemed to be under assault. “I am by far the leader!”

Throughout the debate, both Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) returned to the furious attacks they had mounted on Trump a week before. Rubio, as before, assailed Trump with an eye toward moderate voters — asserting, again and again, that Trump was an unserious con man who was simply telling them what they wanted to hear. Cruz made a different pitch: Aiming at conservatives, he repeatedly sought to assert that Trump was a closet liberal, who had donated and befriended conservative enemies such as Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Trump replied, as before, that he was beating them both. Which he is. With the anti-Trump vote still split between Cruz, Rubio and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, it will be hard for a single challenger to pass Trump.

…The debate reflected the degree to which Trump has changed the GOP’s discourse — at one point, he made an unprompted joke about his genitals — but also the degree to which the other candidates have mimicked his style. Cruz often treated Trump like a child with a temper tantrum, urging him to “breathe” with mock concern. Rubio repeatedly interrupted Trump, as Trump had interrupted others, saying “False. False,” as Trump tried to make a point.

Kasich, as he did in the last debate, did not participate in the attacks on Trump. Instead, he seemed to be holding his own private event at the side of the stage, ignoring the fighting next to him and trying to speak directly to voters.

At the end of the debate, all four candidates onstage refused to break the last taboo of a party debate. The other three said they would vote for Trump, if he became the GOP nominee. Trump said he would vote for one of them, if the nominee turned out to be somebody else — a vow he has made, and then reconsidered before.

But first, Trump mocked the idea that he might have to face the choice at all.

“Even if it’s not me?” he asked, as if the idea were something he hadn’t thought of before.

The way that the Republican Establishment is orchestrating their failing attacks on Donald J. Trump reminds me of “Blazing Saddles”:

We must protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen! Hrumph!

During his speech yesterday, Mitt Romney said,

I understand the anger Americans feel today. In the past, our presidents have channeled that anger, and forged it into resolve, into endurance and high purpose, and into the will to defeat the enemies of freedom. Our anger was transformed into energy directed for good.

Pardon my bluntness, Governor, but

You guys don’t understand squat!

The anger that you are witnessing, that has propelled an outsider to the undisputed lead in the Republican Primaries, is one which has been building since January of 2009, when a Lightweight, who seems to have as much in common with us as a Martian would, was inaugurated as President of the United States of America.

That anger, a result of his anti-American actions and resulting policies, which have affected Americans’ daily lives, has been exacerbated by you out-of-touch, pompous professional politicians that comprise the Republican Elite, whom, in your desire to “reach across the aisle” and “go along to get along”, have distanced yourselves from the average Americans, here in “Flyover Country”, who elected you to Congress in the first place.

Meanwhile, average Americans, like myself, remain mired up to our necks in an abysmal swamp of bills and taxes, living paycheck-to-paycheck, afraid to make a move, for fearing of drowning in an ocean of debt.

Seemingly forgotten, among all of your self-righteousness and empty promises, are the 94 million Americans, who are no longer, largely through no fault of their own, participating in our Workforce.

You want to talk about anger and frustration?

Try looking for work, when you are over 55 years of age.

It makes you want to give up…daily.

But, I digress…

Anger has played an important part in the forging of this great country, which will be lucky to survive Obama’s final year in office.

It was anger that formed our country….an anger over being held captive to “Taxation Without Representation”…an anger which, as a prime example of history repeating itself, Americans are experiencing, even as I type this blog.

It is this anger, which has propelled Donald J. Trump to his lead in the Republican Primary Race…and those, like yourself,  who prefer your beloved “Washingtonian Status Quo” know it.

Hence, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s alluding to it in her Rebuttal to this year’s State of the Union Address, something which has never been done before.

When delivering a Rebuttal to the SOTU Address, the Opposition Party’s Spokesperson is supposed to discredit the sitting President, not one of their own.

In conclusion, concerning the “Mantle of Anger”, I, like Trump, wear it proudly.

And, judging by the reality of Trump’s overwhelming lead in the Republican Primaries, I am not alone.

It is an American’s Right…and Heritage.

And…it shows that you and your fellow Vichy Republicans, don’t have a clue.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

Clinton/Sanders Debate: Two Old Northeast Progressives “Swapping Stories”

February 5, 2016

Hil-Bern-600nrdIn case you didn’t know, didn’t care, or you just didn’t want to watch a couple of old white “Progressives” from the Northeast lie like rugs on National Television, there was an actual Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate held in Prime Time on Thursday, and not in the dead of night on the Weekend.

Politico.com reports that

The niceties are finished.

After a string of debates where Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders discussed (and occasionally disagreed about) the fine points of progressive policy, the two finally had a full-fledged throwdown Thursday night.

Clinton accused Sanders of going negative on the campaign trail, telling the Vermont Senator at the Democratic debate that his campaign was smearing her name.

“I think it’s time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out in recent week,” Clinton said after Sanders talked about getting money out of politics.

Sanders has boasted about not receiving money from Wall street, and has pointed out in recent weeks that Clinton has received large sums in exchange for speaking.

“Sen. Sanders has said he wants to run a positive campaign. I’ve tried to keep my disagreements over issues, but time and time again, by innuendo and by insinuation there is this attack that he is putting forth,” Clinton said.

“Which really comes down to anyone who ever took donations or speaking fees from interest groups has to be bought, and I absolutely reject that Senator. I really don’t think those attacks by insinuation are worthy of you,” Clinton continued

Then she leveled the challenge: “If you have something to say, say it. But I have never changed a view or a vote because of a donation I’ve received.”

Hold on a second. We’ll get back to this “Challenge”

Now about the lies…

Foxnews.com reports that

WASHINGTON –  Hillary Clinton cast the financial industry as an adversary in her presidential campaign — despite the money that industry has poured into her White House effort. Bernie Sanders once again mischaracterized the share of the wealth taken by the very richest Americans.

A look at some of the claims in their latest Democratic presidential debate:

CLINTON on Wall Street: “They are trying to beat me in this primary.”

THE FACTS: Wall Street is not the anti-Clinton monolith she implied. People in the securities and investment industry gave more than $17 million last year to super political action committees supporting her presidential run and nearly $3 million directly to her campaign, according to OpenSecrets.org, a campaign-finance watchdog. Wall Street is the top industry donating to her effort, ahead of the legal profession, non-profit institutions and others.

Clinton is taking heat from Sanders over her Wall Street ties, which go back decades.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that Clinton has brought in more money from the financial sector during her four federal campaigns — for Senate and president — than her husband, Bill Clinton, did in his quarter-century political career. In all, more than $44 million was raised for her campaigns. This includes more than $1 out of every $10 of the money contributed for her 2016 campaign.

Clinton has often talked about how much she has raised from teachers, as opposed to big corporate interests. But the $2.93 million given directly to her campaign last year by people in the securities and investment industry surpassed the $2.88 million given by people in education, OpenSecrets found.

SANDERS: “Almost all new income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent.”

THE FACTS: This has been a common mantra by Sanders but it relies on outdated numbers. In the first five years of the economic recovery, 2009-2014, the richest 1 percent captured 58 percent of income growth, according to Emmanuel Saez, a University of California economist whose research Sanders uses.

That’s a hefty share, but far short of “almost all.” In the first three years of the recovery, 2009-2012, the richest 1 percent did capture 91 percent of the growth in income. But part of that gain reflected an accounting maneuver as the wealthiest pulled income forward to 2012 in advance of tax increases that took effect in 2013 on the biggest earners.

Many companies paid out greater bonuses to their highest-paid employees in 2012 before the higher tax rates took effect. Those bonuses then fell back in 2013. And in 2014, the bottom 99 percent finally saw incomes rise 3.3 percent, the biggest gain in 15 years. Average wages also showed signs of picking up last year as the unemployment rate fell, suggesting the bottom 99 percent may have also seen gains in 2015.

CLINTON: “I am against American combat troops being in Syria and Iraq. I support special forces. I support trainers. I support the air campaign.”

THE FACTS: Clinton makes a dubious distinction. Although it can be debated whether certain types of military personnel fit the definition of “combat” troops, there is little doubt that special operations forces like those now operating both in Syria and Iraq do.

In the fall, a special operations soldier was killed in a firefight in Iraq during a joint U.S.-Kurdish commando raid on an Islamic State prison.

The Pentagon recently sent up to 200 special operations troops to Iraq to carry out a range of risky missions, including raids against Islamic State targets.

Pilots of fighter aircraft, bombers and other warplanes that have flown over Iraq and Syria, dropping bombs and missiles on Islamic State targets on a daily basis, certainly are engaged in combat.
Clinton said she supports Obama’s reluctance to take the lead in ground combat in Iraq and Syria. But many military members are now engaged in combat.

SANDERS: “You have three out of the four largest banks in America today, bigger than they were, significantly bigger than when we bailed them out because they were too big to fail.”

THE FACTS: Sanders is right that JPMorgan, Bank of America and Wells Fargo are larger than they were in mid-2008, before they received bailout money. But those gains largely reflect mergers and acquisitions that occurred, frequently at the government’s behest, during the financial crisis. JPMorgan bulked up by purchasing Bear Stearns, in a deal facilitated by the Federal Reserve. Bank of America ballooned when it acquired Merrill Lynch and Wells Fargo roughly doubled in size when it bought a floundering Wachovia Bank.

But the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul bill, passed in 2010, has forced banks to hold more capital as a cushion against risk and to make future bailouts less likely. That requirement and others has caused several banks, including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Citi, to shed assets to avoid growing larger and triggering further oversight.

CLINTON on Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal: “I said that I was holding out that hope that it would be the kind of trade agreement that I was looking for. I waited until it had actually been negotiated because I did want to give the benefit of the doubt to the administration. Once I saw what the outcome was, I opposed it.”

THE FACTS: As Obama’s secretary of state, Clinton was far more enthusiastic about the Pacific trade deal taking shape than she became once she was running for president and trying to appeal to the liberal wing of her party. As secretary she had given speeches around the world in support of the deal under negotiation, saying in Australia in 2012 that it “sets the gold standard in trade agreements,” a cheerleading sentiment she echoed elsewhere.

She’s stated since that the final agreement didn’t address her concerns. But the final version actually had been modified to drop certain provisions that liberal activist groups had opposed.

CLINTON: “I am not going to make promises I can’t keep. I am not going to talk about big ideas like single-payer and then not level with people about how much it will cost.”

THE FACTS: Clinton was taking aim at Sanders’ universal health care coverage plan that he calls “Medicare for all,” and a new independent analysis suggests that she was correct about his understating the cost.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the tax increases in Sanders’ plan would only cover about 75 percent of the estimated spending under the plan, creating at least a $3 trillion hole over 10 years.

The analysis was based on Sanders’ estimate of how much his plan would spend. If that turns out to be low, then the financing gap would grow.

The group represents deficit foes from both political parties. Leon Panetta, a CIA director and a defense secretary under President Barack Obama, is a co-chairman of its board.

Remember Former Secretary of State Clinton’s challenge from last night, regarding donations that she has received?

“If you have something to say, say it. But I have never changed a view or a vote because of a donation I’ve received.”

Challenge accepted.

Back in April of 2015, NYMag.com reported that

The qualities of an effective presidency do not seem to transfer onto a post-presidency. Jimmy Carter was an ineffective president who became an exemplary post-president. Bill Clinton appears to be the reverse. All sorts of unproven worst-case-scenario questions float around the web of connections between Bill’s private work, Hillary Clinton’s public role as secretary of State, the Clintons’ quasi-public charity, and Hillary’s noncompliant email system. But the best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy.

The news today about the Clintons all fleshes out, in one way or another, their lack of interest in policing serious conflict-of-interest problems that arise in their overlapping roles:

The New York Times has a report about the State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium mines to a Russian company that donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, and that a Russian investment bank promoting the deal paid Bill $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.The Washington Post reports that Bill Clinton has received $26 million in speaking fees from entities that also donated to the Clinton Global Initiative.The Washington Examiner reports, “Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.”And Reuters reports, “Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.”

The Clinton campaign is batting down the darkest and most conspiratorial interpretation of these stories, and where this all leads remains to be seen. But the most positive interpretation is not exactly good.

When you are a power couple consisting of a former president and a current secretary of State and likely presidential candidate, you have the ability to raise a lot of money for charitable purposes that can do a lot of good. But some of the potential sources of donations will be looking to get something in return for their money other than moral satisfaction or the chance to hobnob with celebrities. Some of them want preferential treatment from the State Department, and others want access to a potential future Clinton administration. To run a private operation where Bill Clinton will deliver a speech for a (huge) fee and a charity that raises money from some of the same clients is a difficult situation to navigate. To overlay that fraught situation onto Hillary’s ongoing and likely future government service makes it all much harder.

And yet the Clintons paid little to no attention to this problem. Nicholas Confessore described their operation as “a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.” Indeed, as Ryan Lizzareported in 2012, Bill Clinton seemed to see the nexus between his role and his wife’s as a positive rather than a negative:

Regardless of Bill Clinton’s personal feelings about Obama, it didn’t take him long to see the advantages of an Obama Presidency. More than anyone, he pushed Hillary to take the job of Secretary of State. “President Clinton was a big supporter of the idea,” an intimate of the Clintons told me. “He advocated very strongly for it and arguably was the tie-breaking reason she took the job.” For one thing, having his spouse in that position didn’t hurt his work at the Clinton Global Initiative. He invites foreign leaders to the initiative’s annual meeting, and her prominence in the Administration can be an asset in attracting foreign donors. “Bill Clinton’s been able to continue to be the Bill Clinton we know, in large part because of his relationship with the White House and because his wife is the Secretary of State,” the Clinton associate continued. “It worked out very well for him. That may be a very cynical way to look at it, but that’s a fact. A lot of the stuff he’s doing internationally is aided by his level of access.”

The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to use official government email. She didn’t. The Obama administration alsodemanded that the Clinton Foundation disclose all its donors while she served as Secretary of State. It didn’t comply with that request, either.

The Clintons’ charitable initiatives were a kind of quasi-government run by themselves, which was staffed by their own loyalists and made up the rules as it went along. Their experience running the actual government, with its formal accountability and disclosure, went reasonably well. Their experience running their own privatized mini-state has been a fiasco.

With the revelation of “the gift” of massive quantities of Uranium to the Russians and an Iranian Connection regarding some of the money given to the Clinton Foundation, this is not just a scandal involving money and unscrupulous political ladder-climbing through the peddling of “favors”, the actions of the Clintons crossed the line into the abhorrent abyss of treason.

Clinton does not belong in the White House. She belongs in jail.

And, Sanders need to move to the tiny country of Denmark and like the rest of his life in that failed “Socialist Paradise”

Or, he needs to be fitted with a short white jacket with long sleeves that tie behind the back.

Just sayin’.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Iowa Caucus Analysis: Winners, Losers, and Unbelievable Spin

February 2, 2016

ss-120102-iowa-01.660;660;7;70;0Alright. As Maureen McGovern sang, “There’s Got to Be a Morning After”.

Now that the dust has settled, what can we learn from the results of the First Event of the Primary Season, the Iowa Caucus, or, as it is called, the “Hawkeye Caucai”?

Edward J. Rollins is a former assistant to President Ronald Reagan, who managed Reagan’s 1984 reelection campaign. He is presently a senior presidential fellow at Hofstra University and a member of the Political Consultants Hall of Fame. He is Senior Advisor for Teneo Strategy.

Rollins, a Fox News Contributor, has submitted the following op ed, analyzing the results of yesterday’s Iowa Caucus on the Republican Side of the Aisle…

It is always interesting to watch democracy in action and Iowa is ground zero.

Many political pundits and media analysts complain about the attention Iowa receives from candidates and the media because it goes first. But it also is a state filled with people who are willing to pay attention, to go to small events and forums (more than 1,500 have been held) and to show up at a caucus on a cold, often snowy night to participate in a ritual few states duplicate.

Millions of dollars are spent on TV commercials (over 60,000) and organization that Monday night produced a record turnout.

Iowa doesn’t always produce the eventual winners but it does eliminate the losers. With 17 Republican candidates starting this process, there are really only three or four real candidates now with voter support and sufficient monies to go on to the remaining contests.

With a record voter turnout in Iowa, the winner, Ted Cruz goes on with his extraordinary organization and conservative supporters with a big upset.

Marco Rubio, the best debater, came on strong and gained real momentum. He came very close to coming in second. Certainly he has to be viewed as a very serious candidate and the best bet to become the establishment candidate.

Trump is Trump and his special appeal to new voters and the angry anti-Washington element will go on, too, but with unpredictable results. He also paid a price for missing the last debate and fighting Fox News.

Ben Carson held his 10 percent base, but his candidacy is short lived and beyond Iowa has minimal support.

The biggest losers are Bush, Christie and Huckabee. Bush spent the most money and dropped like a rock.

Christie’s bluster, unlike Trump’s, didn’t sell. He has no money and no future in this race.

And Huckabee, who won this race eight years, and thought he could be a serious challenger against Romney in 2012, was a bottom dweller getting less than 2 percent of the vote. He raised no money and has no appeal and barely has enough money left to buy a bus ticket back to Arkansas. He quickly waved the flag of surrender and wisely quit the race.

One more may make the cut after Iowa, but this is the field now and it will be fascinating to watch.

Monday night’s win is a giant victory for Cruz and his team. He won in spite of a greater turnout than in years past and benefited from the dramatic increase in new voters. And now on to New Hampshire!

So, the Grand Old Party’s cup runneth over, They are seemingly blessed with 3 strong contenders for this Presidential Candidate Nomination.

The problem, as history has shown, is the fact that the Iowa Caucus is not exactly a bellweather by which to determine what will happen in November.

The other problem for the Republican Establishment, is the fact that they absolutely cannot stand the candidates that came in first and second.

Rubio, in the past, has proven to be a useful ally.

Things promise to be interesting in the months leading up to the convention.

Meanwhile, over at Propaganda Central for the Democrat Party and the Clinton Machine, otherwise known as the New York Times, Nate Cohn tried to declare the Queen of Mean, the winner of a VIRTUAL TIE.

Bernie Sanders is right: The Iowa Democratic caucuses were a “virtual tie,” especially after you consider that the results aren’t even actual vote tallies, but state delegate equivalents subject to all kinds of messy rounding rules and potential geographic biases.

The official tally, for now, is Hillary Clinton at 49.9 percent, and Mr. Sanders at 49.6 percent with 97 percent of precincts reporting early Tuesday morning.

But in the end, a virtual tie in Iowa is an acceptable, if not ideal, result for Mrs. Clinton and an ominous one for Mr. Sanders. He failed to win a state tailor made to his strengths.

He fares best among white voters. The electorate was 91 percent white, per the entrance polls. He does well with less affluent voters. The caucus electorate was far less affluent than the national primary electorate in 2008. He’s heavily dependent on turnout from young voters, and he had months to build a robust field operation. As the primaries quickly unfold, he won’t have that luxury.

Iowa is not just a white state, but also a relatively liberal one — one of only a few of states where Barack Obama won white voters in the 2008 primary and in both general elections. It is also a caucus state, which tends to attract committed activists.

In the end, Mr. Sanders made good on all of those strengths. He excelled in college towns. He won an astonishing 84 percent of those aged 17 to 29 — even better than Mr. Obama in the 2008 caucus. He won voters making less than $50,000 a year, again outperforming Mr. Obama by a wide margin. He won “very liberal” voters comfortably, 58 to 39 percent.

But these strengths were neatly canceled by Mrs. Clinton’s strengths. She won older voters, more affluent voters, along with “somewhat liberal” and “moderate” Democrats.

This raises a straightforward challenge for Mr. Sanders. He has nearly no chance to do as well among nonwhite voters as Mr. Obama did in 2008. To win, Mr. Sanders will need to secure white voters by at least a modest margin and probably a large one. In the end, Mr. Sanders failed to score a clear win in a state where Mr. Obama easily defeated Mrs. Clinton among white voters.

Mr. Sanders’s strength wasn’t so great as to suggest that he’s positioned to improve upon national polls once the campaign heats up. National polls show him roughly tied with Mrs. Clinton among white voters, and it was the case here as well. It suggests that additional gains for Mr. Sanders in national polls will require him to do better than he did in Iowa, not that the close race in Iowa augurs a close one nationally.

Mr. Sanders will have another opportunity to gain momentum after the New Hampshire primary. He might not get as much credit for a victory there as he would have in Iowa, since New Hampshire borders his home state of Vermont. But it could nonetheless give him another opportunity to overcome his weaknesses among nonwhite voters.

As a general rule, though, momentum is overrated in primary politics. In 2008, for instance, momentum never really changed the contours of the race. Mr. Obama’s victory in Iowa allowed him to make huge gains among black voters, but not much more — the sort of exception that would seem to prove the rule. Mr. Obama couldn’t even put Mrs. Clinton away after winning a string of states in early February.

Continue reading the main story Write A Comment There’s an even longer list of candidates with fairly limited appeal, particularly Republicans like Rick Santorum, Pat Buchanan or Mike Huckabee, who failed to turn early-state victories into broader coalitions.

The polls this year offer additional reasons to doubt it. Mrs. Clinton holds more than 50 percent of the vote in national surveys; her share of the vote never declined in 2008. The polls say that her supporters are more likely to be firmly decided than Mr. Sanders’s voters.

Back-to-back wins in Iowa and New Hampshire by Mr. Sanders might have been enough to overcome that history. The no-decision in Iowa ensures we won’t find out.

Wow.

I haven’t seen a job of spinning like that since Rumpelstiltskin spun straw into gold. (look him up, kids.)

Mr. Cohn, as we say down here in Dixie,

That dog don’t hunt.

  1. While Sanders’ strength does rely with white voters ( which is funny, because you Democrats are supposed to cherish DIVERSITY, but, I digress…), his base of power lies in the New England States, home of his Millennial Minions and a bunch of those college towns, which you referred to.  And the last time I checked, New Hampshire is located in New England.
  2. Mrs. Clinton’s Voter Base have begun to distance themselves, en masse, from her. She carries more baggage than the image of the late Bob Crane (Greg Kinnear) and his buddy (Willem Dafoe), rolling through the airport, in the Biographical movie, “Auto Focus” …And, she’s just as sleazy.
  3. Momentum “never really changed the contours of the race in 2008”, because it was all on Obama’s side, from the get-go. When you have the ground troops of SEIU and their partner-in-crime, ACORN, going door-to-door for you around the nation, it provides you with an insurmountable lead in “the community”. Hillary does not have access to those ground troops.
  4. BIG QUESTION: What happens if Obama and the Democrat Elites decide that they don’t like what they are seeing, so Obama orders the DOJ to indict Hillary and Crazy Uncle Joe enters the Primaries to “save the day”?

Clinton, no matter what those “smarter than the rest of the country” in the Northeast Corridor may choose to believe, is neither trustworthy nor likable as the polls have shown, time and again. Her Political Accomplishments are all negative, bordering on the nonexistent.

Bill’s coattails can cover up only so much political stain (Ask Monica).

Somebody had better hide all of the sharp instruments at the New York Times. This could get ugly.

Get your popcorn ready.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

Thursday Night in Iowa: A Republican “Royal Rumble” Without the Front-Runner There (Physically, Anyway)

January 29, 2016

thWF5BU64KLast Sunday, the WWE staged it’s annual event, known as “The Royal Rumble” in which 30 combatants enter the squared circle, individually, every 3 minutes, and try to toss each other over the top rope, to see who will headline WrestleMania in a World Championship Match.

Last night’s Republican Presidential Candidates Primary Debate, with the notable absence of the Front-Runner, Donald J. Trump, was reminiscent of that wrestling event.

For those of you who did not watch the Trump-less Republican Primary Contenders’ Debate on Fox News Channel last night, MSN.com provides a detailed synopsis (from the Opposition Party’s point-of-view, of course)…

DES MOINES — The first Republican presidential debate without Donald Trump still took on a Trumpian tone at times, with the seven other top candidates here Thursday night voicing anger, talking tough and vowing to do away with political correctness.

But with the defiant GOP front-runner staging his own counter-program by rallying supporters a few miles away, Trump’s absence left a vacuum on the debate stage and fewer fireworks than Republicans had grown accustomed to.

From the opening question, it was mostly filled by Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), who has been locked in an intensifying duel with Trump for dominance in Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses, only four days away.

Cruz began by mocking Trump’s reputation for insults: “I’m a ‘maniac’ and everyone on this stage is ‘stupid,’ ‘fat’ and ‘ugly.’ And Ben [Carson], you’re a ‘terrible surgeon.’ Now that we’ve gotten the Donald Trump portion out of the way . . .”

From there, however, little more was said about Trump, few direct attacks were leveled at him and the overall atmosphere was notably calmer than in previous debate. That left Cruz as the top target as Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and other opponents sought to puncture the Texas senator’s appeal by trying to depict him as an inauthentic conservative.

“The truth is, Ted, throughout this campaign you’ve been willing to say or do anything in order to get votes,” Rubio said. “You want to trump Trump on immigration.”

Rubio and Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) both attacked Cruz for having once supported an amendment that would have granted legal status, not citizenship, to illegal immigrants — though Cruz maintains that it was a “poison pill” and that he has always opposed amnesty.

“He is the king of saying, ‘Oh, you’re for amnesty. Everybody’s for amnesty except for Ted Cruz,’ ” Paul said. “But it’s a falseness, and that’s an authenticity problem.”

Cruz was not the only candidate on the defensive on immigration, however. Rubio also came under fire for his role as one of the Gang of Eight senators who crafted comprehensive reform legislation in 2013.

After giving Rubio a backhanded compliment for being “charming and smooth,” Cruz hammered him for having aligned with President Obama and Democratic Senate leaders Harry Reid (Nev.) and Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.).

The Fox News Channel moderators tried to challenge both Cruz and Rubio by playing archival video footage of the two senators. After showing the Cruz videos, co-moderator Megyn Kelly asked: “Was that all an act? It was pretty convincing.”

In the absence of Trump, Cruz and Rubio had the most to gain or lose in Thursday night’s debate. The two are the second- and third-polling candidates in Iowa, and their strategies are predicated on being the last non-Trump candidate left standing to face off with the mogul in a long-slog primary season.

Both men emerged with scars.

Rubio appeared to struggle explaining why he advocated a hard-line immigration approach as a Senate candidate, then pursued comprehensive reform that included a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, then reverted.

Rubio said he does not support “blanket amnesty” and focused on the need to seal the border with Mexico and improve security there.

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush used the exchange to portray Rubio — his onetime protege when Rubio was a Florida state lawmaker — as weak for having reversed positions on immigration. After noting that he supported Rubio’s work in the Gang of Eight, Bush said, “He cut and run because it wasn’t popular among conservatives, I guess.”

“You shouldn’t cut and run,” Bush said. “You should stick with it. That’s exactly what happened. He cut and run, and that’s a tragedy.”

Rubio countered by saying that Bush had reversed his own position on citizenship and legal status in a book he wrote.

“So did you,” Bush snapped back.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie used the back-and-forth over Senate votes and amendments to show the leadership differences between legislators and executives, and he repeated his call for a governor in the White House.

“I feel like I need a Washingtonese-English dictionary converter,” Christie joked.

Carson, the retired neurosurgeon who once led the polls but has seen his lead falter among heavy scrutiny of his policy knowhow, invoked his medical career as a credential for the White House: “I’ve had more 2 a.m. phone calls than everybody here put together, making life and death decisions.”

The immigration exchange was one of the few moments of direct confrontation onstage between the candidates. The debate lacked a central focus, with Kelly and her co-moderators, Bret Baier and Chris Wallace, asking many one-off questions that focused on the vulnerabilities of individual candidates.

In return, the candidates gave many of the canned lines that have become familiar on the campaign trail, avoiding taking big risks with the Iowa caucuses so close.

The seventh Republican debate of the 2016 campaign cycle was the first not to include Trump, the billionaire mogul whose bombast and showmanship dominated the previous events.

Trump boycotted the debate, escalating his feud with Fox and its star anchor, Kelly, because he believed he would not be treated fairly. He has long harbored disdain for Kelly because of her aggressive line of questioning during the first GOP debate in August, and he has argued that the network was taking advantage of his popularity with viewers to boost its ratings and thus its advertising revenue.

In her opening question, Kelly said, “Let’s address the elephant not in the room tonight.”

Trump staged a competing rally Thursday night on the Des Moines campus of Drake University, where he raised money for and honored veterans.

Much of the debate centered on foreign policy, with the candidates competing to show who would be the toughest commander in chief.

“You claim it is tough talk to discuss ‘carpet bombing,’ ” Cruz said. “It is not tough talk. It is a different fundamental military strategy than what we’ve seen from President Obama.”

Early in the debate, Cruz took fire on multiple fronts. Paul went after him for refusing to show support for a vote to audit the Federal Reserve and for not voicing strong enough opposition to the government’s surveillance efforts.

“I don’t think Ted can have it both ways. They want to say they’re getting some of the liberty vote,” Paul said. “But we don’t see it happening at all. We think we’re going to do very well in Iowa with the liberty vote.”

Rubio, as he has for months, portrayed Cruz as weak on national security.

“As already has been pointed out, the only budget that Ted has ever voted for is a budget that Rand Paul sponsored that brags about cutting defense spending,” Rubio said. “And I think that’s a bad idea.”

The closing days of the race have been nasty here in Iowa. The campaigns and allied super PACs are blanketing television and radio airwaves with attack ads, while the candidates have laced their stump speeches with sharp barbs.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who is banking his hopes on the Feb. 9 New Hampshire primary, sought to position himself above the fray.

“We cannot fix things in this country — the Social Security, the border, balancing the budget, getting wages to grow faster — unless we lead as conservatives, but we also invite people in from the other party,” Kasich said. “We have to come together as a country. And we have to stop all the divisions.”

Kasich’s call for unity went unheeded, and he was a non-factor through significant stretches of the debate as other candidates sparred.

As in previous debates, the candidates harshly attacked Hillary Clinton and sought to position themselves as best equipped to lead the Republican Party into the general election against Clinton, whom they see as the most likely Democratic nominee.

“She is not qualified to be president of the United States,” Christie said, drawing loud cheers from the audience. “The fact is, what we need is someone on that stage who has been tested, who has been through it, who has made decisions, who has sat in the chair of consequence and can prosecute the case against Hillary Clinton.”

Bush made a similar pitch.

“This is an election about people that are really hurting,” he said. “We need a leader that will fix things and have a proven record to do it. And we need someone who will take on Hillary Clinton in November.”

So, what was the Front-Running Trump up to, while the rest of the candidates duked it out?

Again, MSN.com has the story (and, please remember, they are hardly non-partisan)…

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Donald Trump opened a Thursday rally coinciding with the final GOP debate before Monday’s Iowa caucuses by telling supporters he would have preferred to be at the debate, but had no choice but to skip it after promising a boycott.

Angry over an escalating feud with debate host Fox News, Trump bowed out of the debate and held what his team called a “Special Event to Benefit Veterans Organizations” at a packed 775-seat auditorium at nearby Drake University instead.

“You have to stick up for your rights. When you’re treated badly, you have to stick up for your rights,” Trump told the crowd. “We have to stick up for ourselves as people and we have to stick up for our country if we’re being mistreated.”

Speaking from the stage at what felt like a cross between a televised fundraising telethon and a typical Trump campaign rally, Trump said his foundation already had raised between $5 million and $6 million for veterans since announcing the event. He said he’s putting up $1 million of his own money and read off the names of wealthy friends he said had pledged major contributions.

Trump repeated earlier statements that Fox “very much” wanted him to attend the debate and said he’d fielded repeated phone calls from the network during the day. Fox News Channel issued a statement saying Trump had offered to appear at the debate upon the condition that Fox contribute $5 million to his charities, which the network said was not possible.

Fox News says Chairman Roger Ailes, in conversations with Trump, “acknowledged his concerns” about a statement the network had made in the days leading up to the debate.

Trump has said he’s not worried about turning off voters who may be disappointed by his decision to skip Thursday’s contest.

“We’ve had other voters that love what I’m doing because they don’t want to be pushed around by the establishment,” said Trump, who is planning to participate in the next debate in New Hampshire.

It was unclear exactly which groups would receive money raised from the event and new website Trump launched for collecting donations: donaldtrumpforvets.com. Contributions to the site will go to The Donald J. Trump Foundation, Trump’s nonprofit charitable organization. The page says: “100 percent of your donations will go directly to Veterans needs.”

Trump representatives had been reaching out to various groups, in some cases inquiring about their programs and finances. Among those contacted were the Green Beret Foundation, which provides care to veterans, and Fisher House, which provides free or low cost housing to veterans and military families receiving treatment at military medical centers.

K9s for Warriors, which trains rescue dogs to be service animals for veterans, received a call from a Trump campaign representative asking if the group was interested in accepting funds from the event, according to executive director Rory Diamond. Diamond said the group is non-partisan but would be happy to accept any contributions.

Two of Donald Trump’s presidential rivals have taken the stage at a rally Trump is hosting to benefit veterans as he skips the Republican debate.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum attended the rally after participating in the early undercard debate for candidates whose poll numbers were too low to make it on the main stage.

Trump was joined at the event by two of his rivals, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Both took the stage at Trump’s event after participating in the early, undercard debate for candidates whose poll numbers were too low to make it on the main stage.

Santorum joked that he didn’t want his picture taken with the Trump campaign sign. He quipped that he’s “supporting another candidate for president,” but said he was happy to come out to support veterans.

Huckabee had earlier stressed his appearance should not be seen as an endorsement of Trump. He told the audience gathered at Drake University that he, Santorum and Trump may be presidential race competitors but said “tonight we are colleagues” in supporting veterans.

Every since I graduated high school in 1976, I have followed politics. I had to in college, because I was the News Director of the Campus Radio Station, with a staff of 20 students , who received class credit for producing a 5-minute newscast, once a week.

In 1980, I was privileged to cast my very first vote for the greatest American President in my lifetime, Ronald Reagan.

Since then, I have witnessed a lot of political chicanery, resulting in a lot of harm to the country which I love.

The Muslim-sympathizing, Alinsky-ite Marxist, who currently saunters down to the Oval Office every morning at 10:30 a.m. in his shirt sleeves, on his way to play golf, is the latest and most egregious example.

In every decade since the 1970s, the Media in this country has become more and more Liberal…and more and more subjective in their Editorial Policies and actual reporting.

With the advent of cable television and the 24-hour News Cycle, the Media had to step up their behind-the-scenes manipulation of events, in order to be competitive, and to secure the Cash Cow of their business, high viewership ratings.

What happened last night, was a result of an American Businessman, refusing to play the role of Pinocchio to one of these Modern-day Gepettos.

Per gatewaypundit.com,

FOX News and Google invited a radical Muslim activist, a Bernie Sanders supporter, a Black Lives Matter supporter and a Mexican illegal immigrant to the debate to confront Donald Trump.

Trump found out and, instead of stepping into a pile of…well, you know…he stepped around it, right into more FREE PUBLICITY, while raising money for our American Veterans, whom this Administration has treated so badly.

So, will Trump be hurt by last night?

Hardly.

As of this morning’s Drudge Report’s Republican Candidate Poll, Trump is far outdistancing the pack, with 65.59% of the vote. Sen. Ted Cruz has 16.63%, and Marco Rubio has 6.5%.

Not a scientific poll, I know, but, it could very possibly be a portent of things to come.

The best laid plans of mice and men oft’ times go awry. – Robert Burns

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

O’Reilly Begs Trump, Rush: “Fox Jilted at the Altar”

January 28, 2016

republican_debate_ben_garrisonUnder the category “Actions Have Consequences”…

Thehill.com reports that

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Wednesday night lashed out at Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly in his first appearance on the network since he announced he’d boycott the next GOP debate.
 
He also refused to reconsider his decision to sit out the network’s Thursday night debate – the last before the Iowa caucuses in five days – and said he’d move forward with his own competing event to raise money for wounded veterans.

Speaking on “The O’Reilly Factor,” Trump continued his long-running feud with Kelly, who he has been criticizing ever since she challenged him on his past derogatory remarks about women at the first GOP debate in August. 

“I have zero respect for Megyn Kelly,” Trump said. “I don’t think she’s good at what she does and I think she’s highly overrated. And frankly, she’s a moderator; I thought her question last time was ridiculous.”
 
Kelly is also set to moderate Thursday night’s debate on Fox News.
 
Trump is instead holding a rally in Des Moines at the same time as the Republican debate that he says will raise money for wounded veterans.

In the contentious interview with O’Reilly, Trump rebuffed the anchor’s attempts to convince him that he’s making a grave error by skipping the debate.
 
“I believe personally that you want to improve the country,” O’Reilly said. “By doing this, you miss the opportunity to convince others … that is true.
 
“You have in this debate format the upper hand — you have sixty seconds off the top to tell the moderator, ‘You’re a pinhead, you’re off the mark and here’s what I want to say’. By walking away from it, you lose the opportunity to persuade people you are a strong leader.”
 
But O’Reilly’s pitch fell flat with Trump. The GOP front-runner dug in his heels, insisting he intended to retaliate against the network by depriving them of ratings.
 
“Fox was going to make a fortune off this debate,” Trump said. “Now they’re going to make much less.”
 
O’Reilly said he was merely trying to convince Trump that his approach “is wrong because it’s better for people to see you in the debate format.”
 
He gave the example from 2012, when former Speaker Newt Gingrich was asked an embarrassing question by a CNN debate moderator at a South Carolina debate about allegations he had an open marriage.
 
Gingrich shut the moderator down and went on to win South Carolina, O’Reilly noted.
 
“That’s the kind of guy you are,” O’Reilly said. “You stick it to them and let them have it.”

 Responded Trump: “Newt is a friend of mine and I thought it was an unfair question. But equally unfair was the question Megyn Kelly asked me.”
 
O’Reilly then sought to appeal to Trump’s capacity to forgive, reminding the billionaire businessman that he’s a Christian, even if he doesn’t attend church all that often, and that the Bible says to “turn the other cheek.”
 
Trump shot back, saying he’s a regular church-goer, and that the Bible also says “an eye for an eye.”
 
“You could look at it that way too,” Trump said.
 
O’Reilly accused Trump of being “petty,” and said he was allowing things that are out of his control to have outsized influence over his decision-making process.
 
“I don’t like being taken advantage of,” Trump said. “In this case I was being taken advantage of by Fox. I don’t like that. Now when I’m representing the country, if I win, I’m not going to let our country be taken advantage of. … It’s a personality trait but I don’t think it’s a bad personality trait.”
 
O’Reilly ended the interview asking Trump to just at least consider showing up Thursday night. Trump said the two had agreed beforehand that O’Reilly not ask that question.
 
“I told you up front don’t ask me that question because it’s an embarrassing question for you and I don’t want to embarrass you,” he said.

Bill-O asked the question because his employers are desperate.

Fox News Host Greta Van Susteren posted a Viewer Poll in which she asked if folks would watch tonight’s Republican Primary Debate, if Donald J. Trump followed through with his promise not to show up.

As of the morning of the debate, 86.91% of those who responded will not be watching a “Trump-less” Debate.

Rush Limbaugh, as I reported yesterday, has been on point during this whole kerfuffle.

Once again, he made a couple of spot-on observations on yesterday’s radio program:

Observation #1 –

Folks, I want to let you in on another observation of mine — and that’s all it is, is an observation.  I have found, when talking to people, including media people in the East Coast, New York — well, all the way up and down the East Coast, but New York — Washington, Boston, down here in south Florida and so forth, virtually everybody thinks of Fox News as a conservative network.  But you go out… As I’ve traveled around and go places… Like for the holidays, I see people in Missouri. For Christmas, I see people all over the place. When I golf, I see people all over the country.

And I’m here to tell you: Fox News is not considered the conservative network that it used to be.  I’m not trying to stir anything up here.  I’m saying that when you hear the media, who are all leftists, talk about Fox News, it may as well be the John Birch Society as far as they’re concerned.  That’s why they hate it.  It may as well be the Birchers. It may as well be whatever evil right-wing organization. That’s what they think it is.  But you go out to the heartland of this country, and it’s not so much.  “I mean, what would a conservative network be doing giving time to Michael Moore? 

“Why would New York Times and Washington Post reporters be on the air to give opinions on a conservative network?” This is what people are saying out there that I hear.  Now, the identity is still pretty obviously heavily tilted to news and analysis that you don’t get anywhere else, and that remains true.  I’m just telling you people’s perceptions as they share them with me. I’ll tell you what I think, ’cause I find it amazing.  It’s just more evidence of the media being out of touch and not really knowing what people say.

Since we’re talking about Iowa, I don’t think they really know what’s important to the people of Iowa.  Because they look at everything through their own prism of being in the Northeast and part of the liberal power structure that determines every social, political structure in that part of the country — and, as such, there’s a divide.  And it’s not just among elected officials.  I speak constantly about the disconnect that exists now between elected officials and the people, Republican and Democrat.

The distances, the disconnect between the people who vote for them and the people that serve in office is bigger than I’ve ever seen it.  And it’s no more obvious than the issue of immigration.  But it’s also obvious on the issue of say, Obamacare, or spending.  And when you start talking about Fox News, people in the media say, “Oh, it’s just embarrassing. Right wing! My God, ugh.”  But it’s not thought of that way in many parts of the country.  

Observation #2 –

You’ve heard the phrase “the game.”  Every business has aspects of it that are considered the game, and that’s the routine.  And the game is characterized by everybody knowing the rules of the game.  People involved in it play by the rules.  Some venture outside now and then, but the rules pretty much of the game are adhered to because it’s a matter of respect for the game in which everybody is in. 

And in this business one of the games is that when the media calls, you answer, and when the media wants you, you go, and when the media is going to host a debate and it’s part of a Republican presidential campaign, you go.  You just do it, no matter what the media’s done to you in the past, no matter what you think of it, whether you want to go or not, you go.  That’s the game. 

Trump is so far outside this game, he’s so far outside the rules, he’s never been a player in this game.  He’s always been an outsider.  I heard people on Fox last night talking about this. “Who does he think he is?  He can’t control the media.”  I got news for you:  He is controlling the media, and it’s his objective.  He is controlling the media.  He controls the media when he’s not on it.  He controls the media when he is on it.  He controls the media when he’s asleep.  Nobody else has been able to do anything like this short of the Kennedys, and they’re pikers compared to the way Trump is doing this. 

Now, it’s very simple, if you read The Art of the Deal or if you know Donald Trump at all, it’s very simple:  He had an unpleasant experience in the first debate, and in his mind, the question that he was asked was rigged.  Don’t forget, before that first debate, remember all of the news stories that were floating around saying that that debate, somebody at Fox had been given orders by the Republican establishment to take Trump out.  Remember that?  There were any number of so-called sources for this.  Some said it was the donors demanding it.  Some said that it was Fox News executives demanding it.  Some said it was the RNC demanding it. 

Well, Trump’s not immune.  He hears it.  And even if he hadn’t heard it he would have to know that they want to take him out; he’s outside the game; he’s breaking all the rules.  He’s exposing so much as fraud that has gone on inside the American political process for so long they can’t allow somebody like this to win and succeed.  It’s quite natural they would want to take him out as well.  It’s Bengals-Steelers time here, folks.  It’s quite natural they’d want to take him out.  Well, he heard it.

Here comes Megyn Kelly’s first question.  He didn’t hear anybody else get a question like that.  He never sees Hillary Clinton get a question like that.  He never hears Bill Clinton or another Democrat get a question like that.  So he answers it and says screw this.  I’m not putting myself in that position again.  Why should I?  I don’t have to. 

But the rules of the game say when there’s a debate, you show up.  Screw the rules, he’s saying.  Why should I willingly give them another shot at me in a circumstance they control, why should I do it?  What’s the sense in it for me?  I’m leading; I’m running the pack here; why in the world should I put myself in that circumstance?  I’ve already seen what’s gonna happen. 

I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that.  I mean, there could be some personal things going on here that I don’t know about.  But just from the standpoint of knowing Trump, reading his book, and seeing how he operates elsewhere, in his mind, screw the rules, screw what’s expected, screw “This is just the way you do it.”  I’m not gonna put myself in a position go where I’m gonna be treated unfairly.  I don’t have to.  I’m Donald Trump.  Anybody can do this.  Ted Cruz could choose to do it if he wants to.  They just don’t.  Cruz and the rest of the pack are playing the rules of the game.  Trump is saying I don’t have to do it.  I don’t want to do it.  I don’t have any respect for these people.  What the hell. 

In addition to that, Donald Trump knows that by not showing up, he’s owning the entire event.  Some guy not even present will end up owning the entire event, and the proof of that is Fox News last night.  I have to tell you, folks, this is where this gets tough for me.  I was stunned watching Fox News last night.  Fox News was acting like they had been jilted at the altar.  If it had been me — and this is easy to say — if it had been me and Donald Trump makes a big to-do about not showing up for the debate, report the story and move on.  Talk about Ted Cruz.  Go talk about the other candidates.  Go talk about Hillary and the FBI.  There’s a lot of news out there.  But don’t devote the rest of the night to how a candidate’s not showing up because of you.  I mean, the network, not just Megyn Kelly. 

Look, I understand the warfare that has been established here.  If you look at some of the things that Trump’s campaign spokesman, Corey Lewandowski has said, if you read between the lines, it looks like what really has ticked ’em off over at Trump central is the mocking of Trump in the official PR statements that Fox has released, making fun, they’re gonna call Putin, they’re gonna call in the ayatollah, and the ayatollah and Putin, whatever.  That might have been the nail in the coffin as opposed to any lack of desire to face Megyn Kelly. But folks, one other thing about this.  If I heard it once last night, I’ve heard it a thousand times since, that Trump is afraid of Megyn Kelly or afraid of Fox News.  That is not what this is.  There isn’t any fear.  What is there is here — in my opinion — is a desire to control this and a purposeful decision to not put himself in a circumstance where other people want to make him look bad. 

In his mind, that’s a dumb thing to do.  You don’t put yourself in a circumstance where a whole bunch of other people are gonna be able to make you look bad while you’re there.  If they do it when you’re not around, that’s another thing, you can counterprogram it, you can do whatever, but you don’t have to put yourself in a circumstance where you have to personally deal with it as a sign of disrespect or somebody else trying to notch their belt.  It really isn’t any more complicated than that. 

Exactly.

It was a sound business decision. He was protecting his “brand”. The “Business of Today’s Politics” decrees that you jump when the Elite of your Political Party and their minions in the Media tell you to. That is the game to which Rush was referring.

The problem that the Republican Elite and the Media are having with Trump is the simple fact that he is a Businessman. He is not a Professional Politician. Trump knew that he was walking into a trap. So, he made the decision not to. It was a sound Business Decision. He was protecting his “brand”, while at the same time, once again owning the News Cycle.

Additionally, through appearing on behalf of the Iowa Veterans, he is solidifying his Populist Image.

Another Republican Presidential Hopeful, back in the 1980s, decided to skip the last Primary Debate before the Iowa Caucus. He lost Iowa, but he won the Presidency in a landslide.

He did alright.

Ratings-wise, Fox News, if Trump goes through with his plans, will be hoisted on their own petard.

My degree is in Radio, Television, and Film. And, let me tell you, boys and girls, in television, even now, almost 36 years after I graduated college, high viewership ratings remain the Cash Cow of the Television Industry.

Their business depends on it.

In this situation, those who run Fox News decided to send their Cash Cow to the slaughterhouse and then hold a barbeque.

As a result of their actions, I predict that they will experience a bad case of gas tonight.

Until He Comes,

KJ