Ann Coulter: Did Anyone Talking About Trump’s Speech Actually Hear It?

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

by ANN COULTER15 Jun 2016787

The media have lost their minds after Trump’s magnificent speech on Monday. It’s all hands on deck, no attack is too extreme. Their main point is: DO NOT LOOK AT THAT SPEECH. It has “words that wound.” Much too dangerous even to read it.

Instead of reporting what Trump said, the media give us the “gist” of it (in the sense of an unrecognizable distortion). It was awful, Hitlerian, beneath our dignity as a nation. They lie about what he said and then attack their own lies as if they’re attacking Trump.

The Washington Post’s headline, which got their reporters banned from Trump’s press briefings, was: “Donald Trump Seems to Connect President Obama to the Orlando Shooting.”

I guess OK, You’re Right, didn’t sound professional, so the Post pretended not to understand Trump’s speech, at all. We can’t makes heads or tails of it, but he seems to be saying …

One thing Trump is not, is unclear.

Contrary to the Post’s headline suggesting that Trump had posited some crazy theory about Obama secretly meeting with Omar Mateen to plot the attack — No, this gun is much better for a mass shooting, Omar — Trump criticized the Obama administration policies that are not keeping us safe. (It’s completely unprecedented to respond to a mass murder by criticizing the policies that allowed it to happen!)

After San Bernardino and Orlando — also, the Boston Marathon, Fort Hood, Little Rock, Chattanooga and Times Square — quite obviously, Trump is right.

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Washington Post: We’re confused. What do you mean?

How about: Washington Post seems to Connect President Bush to Abu Ghraib

Washington Post, May 26, 2006: “Bush has … addressed Abu Ghraib the same way he did last night: Expressing regret without responsibility.”

Or: Democrats Seem to Connect President Bush to Anti-Americanism in Muslim World

Washington Post, May 20, 2005: “It is certainly true that the Bush administration, at Guantanamo and at Abu Ghraib, is responsible for a good deal of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.”

Or: Washington Post Seems to Connect President Bush to Missing WMDs and Katrina Deaths

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Washington Post, April 5, 2006: “How much was President Bush personally responsible for taking the country to war under false pretenses, or for the botched response to Hurricane Katrina? To hear the White House tell it, it wasn’t really his fault.”

In his speech, Trump said:

“The killer was an Afghan, of Afghan parents, who immigrated to the United States. His father published support for the Afghan Taliban, a regime which murders those who don’t share its radical views. The father even said he was running for president of that country.

“The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here.

“That is a fact, and it’s a fact we need to talk about.

“We have a dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country, and it does not permit us to protect our citizens.”

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Immediately after Trump’s speech, MSNBC’s Katie Tur “fact-checked” Trump, announcing that he had incorrectly said Omar was “born in Afghan.”

What did Tur think this meant? “Afghan” isn’t a country. Didn’t she pause for a moment and realize that what she thought he said makes no sense? Journalists with their outsized sense of importance say, No, no, that’s not what I heard. It says in my notes right here, you said, “blue carrots for Eisenhower.” I stand by my notes.

Obviously, what Trump said was that Omar was “born an Afghan.” Which he was.

The media began indignantly informing us that Trump was wrong because — as The Washington Post put it: “The shooter was born in Queens to parents who emigrated from Afghanistan.”

With the media, you’re an “American” when you commit the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, an “Afghan” when you’re applying to college. You’re an “American” when you shoot up the San Bernardino community center, a “Pakistani” when you’re offended by Trump’s remarks. You’re an “American” when you slaughter troops at Fort Hood, a “Muslim” when the Army realizes it can’t fire you.

This can lead to confusion. After the Post snippily corrected Trump on Omar not being an “Afghan” on Monday, on Tuesday, the Post admitted he was. Headline: “Orlando gunman said he carried out attack to get ‘Americans to stop bombing his country,’ witness says.”

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

The Atlantic’s Ron Fournier, Dispenser of Conventional Liberal Opinion, wrote an article on Trump’s speech titled “A Victory Lap in Blood” that would make any social justice warrior proud.

Like the rest of the media’s reviews of a speech they apparently didn’t read, there were no quotes from Trump’s speech. Instead, Fournier ran through a string of accusations, SJW-style: “You didn’t call it,” “You are helping ISIS recruit terrorists,” “You are dividing Americans …”

Trump never claimed he “called it,” but, if he ever does, Fournier has a fantastic takedown:

“You didn’t warn that an American man named Omar Mateen, a well-educated security guard investigated by the FBI for suspected ties to terrorism, would legally purchase a weapon made for warfare and use it to slaughter 49 people at a popular gay nightclub.”

Hillary Clinton is presidential because she wants to dramatically increase the number of unvetted Syrian refugees we bring in. But Trump is an embarrassment because he doesn’t have superhuman powers to know that a “man named Omar Mateen” would attack an Orlando nightclub.

Fournier repeated the fake fact currently sweeping the nation about Trump thinking he deserves congratulations, writing, “Donald Trump wants a pat on the back.”

But then Fournier made the fatal mistake of quoting Trump’s tweet allegedly saying this: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!”

Fournier’s “Trump wants a pat on the back” was 12 words away from Trump saying, “I don’t want congrats.” Even the most bored reader is probably going to make it that far.

Now you see why reporters aren’t quoting Trump and have to hope you won’t read the speech for yourself.

COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER 
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential Race, Big Journalism,National Security, Ann Coulter, Donald Trump, Washington Post

Reporter Behind New York Times Trump Attack Has a History of Failed Hatchet Jobs

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

by DUSTIN STOCKTON17 May 2016261

Michael Barbaro’s hit piece on Donald Trump in the New York Times Saturday started unraveling almost as soon as it was published. Even CNN anchors were astonished that Barbaro had no answer to charges of distortion from his story’s lead source. But for Barbaro this is just another embarrassing example of a failed attempt to take down a Republican.

Barbaro’s article — “Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private” — includes several widely reported incidents that have been shown to be questionable, but the story really started to unravel when the woman featured most prominently in the article, Rowanne Brewer Lane, started publicly calling out the authors for misleading readers by twisting her words to paint Trump in a negative light.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

After a brief romance with Trump decades ago, Rowanne Brewer Lane spent hours on the phone and did a photo shoot for the New York Times because she wanted to let people know “how well Trump treats women.” Instead, hours of interviews were whittled down to suggest that Donald Trump had somehow “debased” Brewer Lane, a claim she doesn’t support.

For someone who works for the New York Times and was educated at Yale, Michael Barbaro’s “reporting” routinely lacks even enough pretense of objectivity to be defended by people who share his politics, which is pretty amazing when you consider what New York Times and other mainstream media reporters are able to get away with.

Last June, Barbaro took aim at Florida Senator Marco Rubio, claiming that he had “splurged” on a “luxury speedboat” as part of a larger story about Rubio’s mismanagement of his personal finances. Even Politico ran an article debunking that whopper titled, “Rubio’s ‘Luxury Speedboat’ Is A Fishing Boat.” The Daily Show With Jon Stewart mocked the story at the time:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

advertisement

For Barbaro it’s not the first time he’s beencalled out by those on the left for a weak hatchet job on a Republican Presidential candidate. In 2012, Ari Melber—a columnist for The Nation, a hard leftwing magazine—blasted an article Barbaro had written about Mitt Romney during a segment on MSNBC. Speaking of Barbaro’s hit piece about Romney back then, Melber said: “I want to call bull on both the substance of the story and the way the New York Timesdealt with it.”

A quick review of Barbaro’s Twitter account shows he’s hardly impartial when it comes to Donald Trump:

Mission accomplished, Mr. Trump. CNN doing an entire segment on Taco Bowl right now, 24 hours after it was posted. Sigh.

— Michael Barbaro (@mikiebarb) May 6, 2016

Just to reiterate: amid violence at rallies, GOP frontrunner wants to pay legal bills of man who threw the punch, not the one hurt by it.

— Michael Barbaro (@mikiebarb)March 13, 2016

Entire Trump campaign, arguably, is journalistic lesson about over-coverage of elites, their views, the weight they carry.

— Michael Barbaro (@mikiebarb) May 5, 2016

Unexpected challenge in GOP debate prep: finding stand-in who can convincingly channel Trump’s rage (and his hair) http://t.co/f6X1SUieph

— Michael Barbaro (@mikiebarb)August 2, 2015

Just in time for debate! Trump controlled companies sought visas for 1,100 foreign workers. Protecting US jobs is he? http://t.co/nACYuszKPA

— Michael Barbaro (@mikiebarb)August 1, 2015

Protectionist Trump apparently couldn’t find an American “banquet manager” or “golf superintendent” so looked abroad: http://t.co/nACYuszKPA

— Michael Barbaro (@mikiebarb)August 1, 2015

 

Dustin Stockton is a political reporter for Breitbart News, a community liaison for Gun Owners of America, and a political strategist. Follow him on Twitter @DustinStockton orFacebook

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential Race, Big Government, Big Journalism, Ari Melber, Michael Barbaro,New York Times, Rowanne Brewer Lane

Magazine Depicts Donkey with Hillary Tattoo Raping Donald Trump

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

OC Weekly

by ADELLE NAZARIAN5 May 201629

This week’s OC Weekly cover features a Democratic donkey, with a Hillary for America tattoo, raping a naked depiction of Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump.

The less-than-savory cover appears to be a take on the infamous Donkey Show myth in Mexico, in which a woman has sex with the animal.

“Yes, that is a Democratic ass on top of Donald Trump on the cover of this week’s dead-tree Weekly,” the magazine writes. “And it’s only fitting.”

The image was drawn by Hispanic “cartoonista” Lalo Alcaraz who was born in San Diego, California to Mexican parents. In the dialogue bubbles, the Clinton donkey says, “check out our Trump coverage!” while it shows off its abnormally large teeth. The Trump caricature depicts a flustered and humiliated man saying, “It’s yuuuge!”

The donkey, or ass, is the Democratic Party’s mascot.

The magazine offers the following description of its Charlie Hebdo-like cover choice, which it self-praises as “good stuff!”

For more than a year, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee has peddled all sorts of nasty myths against Mexicans, from painting undocumented immigrants as rapists and Typhoid Marias to insisting a massive wall on the U.S.-Mexico border will make America great again.” His campaign has grown as grotesque as adonkey show, those Tijuana spectacles that exist only in the fevered minds of gabachos, and it made a stop in Costa Mesa last week, with Trump the featured star and theWeeklydocumentingeveryscream,punch and lie. So it’s also only fittinglegendary cartoonista Lalo Alcarazcapture the moment, you know? Besides, Democrats violating Trump from behind is what he can expect when he faces Hillary Clinton come November. Enjoy our package, and don’t forget to register to vote!

BTW, the idea for this cover came from our former sister paper the Riverfront Times, who infamously had theDemocratic donkey humping former Missouri congressman Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akins on its cover in 2012—good stuff!

The OC Weekly cover arrives just one month away from the California primary, which will likely decide the state of the race in the Democratic Party. Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, is just 178 total delegates away from clinching the party’s nomination.

advertisement

Follow Adelle Nazarian on Twitter @AdelleNaz 

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential Race, Big Journalism,Breitbart California, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Democratic Party, 2016 presidential election, Donkey, OC Weekly

The Nuclear Option— 2016: The Year The Experts Got Everything Wrong

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

by CHARLES HURT4 May 2016317

If in the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is king, then columnist David Brooks of the New York Times is blind, deaf and dumb inside the Beltway.

In an election year where all the experts have been exactly wrong about absolutely everything, it really is something of a feat to be as spectacularly and enthusiastically wrong as Mr. Brooks.

This probably should not come as much of a surprise, given how highly revered the pundit-scribe is inside the Beltway. He serves as some kind of “Republican voice” for the New York Times and offers up nerdy commentary for “News Hour” on National People’s Television.

Mr. Brooks inducted himself into the Hall of Fame for the blind, deaf and dumb with a stupid and arrogant column he wrote last week in which he finally realized that Donald Trump is leading to become the Republican nominee for president.

Yes, this guy is supposed to be a political expert. If he were this clueless about baseball, he would not last 10 minutes as a sports commentator. Yet, in this world, he is hailed as some kind of genius. But it is what Mr. Brooks wrote after stating that firm grasp of the obvious that makes him so much more of a buffoon than his conception of Mr. Trump could ever be.

The nomination of Mr. Trump, he said, is a “Joe McCarthy moment” and those supporting him “will be tainted forever.”

He then rattles off statistics revealing the hopelessness, desperation and isolation that so many Americans feel today — and have felt for a long time.

advertisement

Always gasping to sound intelligent, Mr. Brooks terms this national despair “declinism.” Because at this moment in American history, what we really need is another stupid political pundit sounding intelligent while completely ignoring the hailstorm of misery all around him.

Discovering something amiss with the people, Mr. Brooks determines it is time to engage the problem.

“Trump’s success grew out of that pain, but he is not the right response to it,” Mr. Brooks writes. “The job for the rest of us is to figure out the right response.”

What??? You have just arrived six months late at the scene of a five-alarm fire caused by a long-brewing volcanic eruption in which millions of people are drowning in a sea of liquid fire and you, Mr. Brooks of the New York Times editorial department and National People’s Television, are telling the dog-tired firefighters to step aside — you will handle this.

Really??? And you are wearing a little plastic children’s fireman Halloween costume and your little truck has pedals and your hose doesn’t actually carry water, you arrogant little sniveler.

People are literally dying, Little Dave. People have hooked themselves on meth and heroin because they have no jobs. Because they have no work to do. They have no purpose in life. They have become dependents upon this great Federal Government of yours.

advertisement

All these social programs that you espouse to make yourself feel better, all the lying, all the punditry has become a trap that is destroying lives and destroying relationships between people, families and their communities.

You mix in with that the rampant illegal immigration that steals jobs, deflates wages and spawns crime and you have a broiling powder keg. Oh, yeah, and then call anybody who is concerned about illegal immigration a “racist” and you can cast aside any hope of your precious civil discourse.

“I was surprised by Trump’s success because I’ve slipped into a bad pattern, spending large chunks of my life in the bourgeois strata — in professional circles with people with similar status and demographics to my own,” the insufferable gasbag wrote. “It takes an act of will to rip yourself out of that and go where you feel least comfortable.”

Oh yeah? You mean, like, what families across America are doing every single day confronting their sister, their son, their mother in the unholy clutches of addiction? You mean “least comfortable,” like going to the local church food pantry to get a week’s worth of canned goods?

Seriously, you don’t have to even leave the Beltway or Manhattan to see the kind of misery that is everywhere today.

“But this column is going to try to do that over the next months and years. We all have some responsibility to do one activity that leaps across the chasms of segmentation that afflict this country.”

advertisement

Whatever. I don’t know what that means and neither do you, Mr. Brooks.

But don’t flatter yourself. Yes, you have been a part of the problem for a very long time and always will be. But America sure doesn’t need your help now. Please, just stay in your little “bourgeois strata” and leave us alone.

Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com. Follow him on Twitter via @charleshurt.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race, Big Journalism, Donald Trump, David Brooks,The Nuclear Option, New York Time

Daily Mail: ‘Clinton Cash’ Film Explodes into Campaign

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

by BREITBART NEWS29 Apr 2016209

advertisement

From the Daily Mail Geoff Earle writes:

The book that raked through the complex web of political, campaign fundraising, and political practices of Bill and Hillary Clinton last year and muddied Clinton’s presidential campaign launch is coming to the big screen just in time to cause Clinton trouble in the general election.

‘Clinton Cash’ is set to premiere the day before the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, and is based on the book by the same title by author Peter Schweizer.

Schweizer is joined by fellow producer Stephan K. Bannon of conservative outlet Breitbart news on the project.

A trailer for the film, which is directed by M.A. Taylor., features images of blood dripping down piles of cash, Bloomberg News reported.

The trailer kicks off with clip of Clinton complimenting foreign governments for ‘rooting out corruption’ – even as Schweizer, who is interviewed as part of the film, says the Clintons ‘created a model for massive self enrichment that allows you to go into so-called pub service but get extremely rich at the same time.’

The book’s release in May prompted a series of investigations by major news outlets into the fundraising practices of the Clinton foundation, which had accepted major contributions from corporations and foreign governments.

It also probed hefty speaking fees earned by the Clintons from foreign and domestic corporations after Bill Clinton left the White House, the foundation’s charity work, and Clinton’s time at the State Department.

You can read the rest of the story here.

Read More Stories About:

Big Hollywood, 2016 Presidential Race, Big Journalism, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton,Clinton Cash, Peter Schweizer, Stephan K. Bannon

Ann Coulter: A Slow-Talker and a Homeless Guy Walk into a Bar…

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

by ANN COULTER27 Apr 20162

Apparently, John Kasich and

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

97%

 are at their most appealing when no one is paying attention to them, which, conveniently, is most of the time.

After Cruz won cranky Wisconsin last month — only the fourth actual election he’s won — voters decided to give him a second look. But two seconds after people said, “OK, let’s give this guy a try,” he cratered. You might say a little of Ted Cruz goes a long way. Voters can’t stand Cruz any more than his Senate colleagues can.

Listening to Cruz always makes me feel like I have Asperger’s. He speaks so slowly, my mind wanders between words. As Trump said, there’s a 10-second intermission between sentences. I want to order Cruz’s speeches as Amazon Audibles, just so I can speed them up and see what he’s saying

The guy did go to Harvard Law School, so I keep waiting for the flashes of brilliance, but they never come. Cruz is completely incapable of extemporaneous wit.

Now that Cruz has been mathematically eliminated, he’s adding Carly Fiorina to the ticket. She’s not his “running mate,” but his “limping mate.” It’s an all-around lemon-eating contest.

Voters quickly moved on from Cruz and tried Kasich. But he turned out to be the spitting image of a homeless man. He’s got the slouch, the facial tics, and a strange way of bouncing his head and looking around that makes you want to cross the street to avoid him. It looks like he cuts his own hair, and his suits are Ralph Nader cast-offs. He wolfs down food like a street person, has a hair-trigger temper, and rants about religion in a way that only he can understand.

Kasich is constantly proclaiming that illegals are “made in the image of God,” and denounces the idea of enforcing federal immigration laws, saying: “I don’t think it’s right; I don’t think it’s humane.”

When asked about his decision to expand Medicaid under Obamacare — projected to cost federal taxpayers $50 billion in the first decade — he said: “Now, when you die and get to the, get to the, uh, to the meeting with St. Peter … he’s going to ask you what you did for the poor. Better have a good answer.”

He lectured a crowd of fiscal conservatives on his Obamacare expansion, saying, “Now, I don’t know whether you ever read Matthew 25, but I commend it to you, the end of it, about do you feed the homeless and do you clothe the poor.” He also attributed the law to Chief Justice John Roberts and said, “It’s my money, OK?”

Voters thought they were getting a less attractive version of Mitt Romney with Kasich, but it turns out they’re getting a more televangelist version of Ted Cruz.

They’re also getting a less warm and personable version of Hillary Clinton. Last week, Kasich lashed out at a reporter who asked a perfectly appropriate question, going from boring campaign boilerplate to irritated browbeating in about one second flat. As much as I enjoy watching reporters being berated, this was deranged.

Kasich: Listen, at the end of the day I think the Republican Party wants to pick somebody who actually can win in the fall.”

Reporter: But if you’ve only won Ohio?

Kasich: “Can I finish?”

Reporter: “If you answer the ques–”

Kasich: “I’m answering the question the way I want to answer it. You want to answer it?” (Snatches voice recorder from reporter’s hand.) “Here, let me ask you. What do you think?

When giving a speech to Ohio EPA workers a few years ago, Kasich suddenly went off topic and began shouting about a police officer who had given him a ticket three years earlier. “Have you ever been stopped by a police officer that’s an idiot?” he began. He proceeded to tell the riveting story of his traffic violation to the EPA administrators, yelling about “this idiot! … He’s an IDIOT!”

Based on the dashcam video immediately released by the police, Kasich had been in the wrong, and the officer — you know, “the IDIOT” — was perfectly polite about it.

With Trump it’s exactly the opposite. The more people see of him, the more they like him. The usual pattern is: Trump says something perfectly sensible, the media lie about it, then voters find out the truth and like him more and the media less.

Ironically, it’s Kasich who has been complaining the loudest about the alleged billions of dollars of “free media” Trump has been getting. It turns out not getting “free media” was a godsend for Kasich and Cruz.

COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER 
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race, Big Journalism, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter: New York Commemorates Patriots Day!

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com Facebook.com/SmythRadio

by ANN COULTER20 Apr 20161,516

So that you won’t be fooled by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow claiming Second Amendment supporters were celebrating the Oklahoma City bombing this week — as she has on April 19 in years past — Tuesday was the anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord, a date all Americans used to know.

This year, New Yorkers celebrated by voting to keep the country that was christened in blood at Lexington and Concord.

Until Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem, most Americans knew as little about Paul Revere’s ride as Rachel Maddow does today.

Listen my children and you shall hear 

Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere, 

On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five; 

Hardly a man is now alive 

Who remembers that famous day and year. 

Suspecting that the British would soon be mobilizing to crush the brewing rebellion, American patriots had been watching and waiting. When rebel leader Dr. Joseph Warren received a secret message that the British were planning to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock in Lexington that night, he immediately alerted Paul Revere and two others in their clandestine group.

By pre-arrangement, each rider took a different route to Lexington. If any two were captured by the British, the message would still be delivered. The fate of a nation was riding that night.

The most famous of the three — except to Rachel Maddow — was Paul Revere, who later wrote a detailed account of his momentous ride.

Revere had instructed the sexton of a Boston church to climb to the top of the steeple — unobserved by the church’s Loyalist minister — and signal the patriots of Charlestown with lanterns to indicate which route the British were taking: One if by land, and two if by sea. (Please tell me most American schoolchildren still know that line.)

Revere crossed the Charles River, sneaking past a British warship, to the Charlestown patriots waiting for him. For such an important mission, they had chosen a surefooted horse named Brown Beauty. Revere saddled Brown Beauty and took off for Lexington, alerting rebel leaders — and evading British patrols — along the way.

As planned, these town leaders spread the message to the local militias, a communication network that proceeded with “astonishing speed,” in the words of historian David Hackett Fischer, author of the book, Paul Revere’s Ride.

At around midnight, when Revere arrived at the Lexington home where Hancock and Adams were in hiding, the guard chastised Revere, telling him to stop making so much noise. “Noise?” Revere replied. “You’ll have noise enough before long! The Regulars are coming!”

The second rider, William Dawes, arrived soon thereafter, and the third man, lost to history, never made it.

Wondering why the British were mobilizing so many troops for a simple arrest, the men realized that the British were planning to seize the rebels’ artillery, stored in Concord.

So Revere and Dawes headed to Concord, again setting off the alarm throughout the countryside. On their way, they met a young, wealthy doctor, Samuel Prescott, who was returning from a late evening with his fiancee. Prescott, a “High Son of Liberty,” offered to ride with them since he knew the terrain and knew the people.

Halfway to Concord, they were captured by the British, but Dr. Prescott managed to escape and ride on, alerting the towns all around Concord. In the wee hours of the morning, he stopped at his home in Concord to wake his father and brother, also doctors, whereupon his brother, Abel, saddled up and took the warning south.

The Battle of Lexington at sunrise next morning, April 19, would not have given Americans much hope. British troops made short work of the disorganized and massively outnumbered militiamen.

But Concord was a different story. This was the shot heard “round the world.”

By the time the British reached Concord, militias from dozens of towns had received the call and were ready for battle. The town’s minister, William Emerson — grandfather of Ralph Waldo Emerson — urged on the rebels, slapping one terrified young solider on the back and saying, “Stand your ground, Harry! Your cause is just and God will bless you!”

Although still outnumbered, the Americans hit the British so hard, they retreated all the way back to Boston, with the militias bird-dogging them the whole way.

Having seen the Americans fight, the leader of the British forces, Lord Hugh Percy, who had taken a dim view of the Colonists until then, concluded, “[w]hoever looks upon them as an irregular mob, will find himself very much mistaken.”

Hancock and Adams were safe, the rebels’ ordnance secure, and the war that gave birth to the greatest country in human history had begun.

But today, the comfortable inheritors of that country would rather allow it to become a dumping ground for the Third World than risk being called “racist.”

In all, about 50 Americans were killed in the Battle of Concord. By population, that’s the equivalent of more than 6,000 Americans dying in a single military action today.

But today, Republican political consultants would rather throw away the country those brave patriots died for, than risk their cozy salaries, jobs and status.

Following the Battle of Concord, Dr. Prescott left his fiancee, his family and his wealth to fight for the revolution. A few years into the war, his ship was captured by the British. No one ever heard from him again. His fiancee waited for him for eight years, until finally, a returning soldier reported that Prescott had died in a Nova Scotia prison. His fiancee married, then died young.

But today, most pundits would rather promote open borders and watch our country disappear than lose their TV gigs.

Dr. Prescott’s brother, Abel, was badly injured by the British at the Battle of Concord. He died from his wounds a few months later — nearly a year before the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

But today, rich ranchers and farmers would rather see the country Abel died for overwhelmed with foreign cultures than give up their cheap foreign labor.

So far, seven of the 13 Colonies have spoken: Georgia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia — and, on the anniversary of Lexington and Concord, New York. All seven held elections, not party-rigged conferences or caucuses. All of them have gone for Trump. It looks like the 13 Colonies are trying to save America, once again.

COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER 
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race, Big Journalism, Ann Coulter, Rachel Maddow,Lexington and Concord, Paul Revere, Battle of Concord

The Nuclear Option: Donald Trump Built a Juggernaut and Had the Media Pay for It

by CHARLES HURT10 Feb 2016

Why does the mainstream media heap such scorn and disbelief on Donald Trump over his promise to build a great wall along the border with Mexico — and make Mexico pay for it? After all, Donald Trump has built a winning presidential campaign — and made the media pay for it.

Mr. Trump’s second place finish in Iowa gave respite to the legions of media pundits and establishment flunkies who suffer the worst forms of Donald Trump Derangement Syndrome. They braced for a huge blow-out win in the Corn State. When it didn’t happen, it was like an executioner’s gun jamming. First they flinched, then they blinked a few times and then got up and ran like their hair was on fire.

Ever since, of course, they have been gloating and crowing — from a safe distance — that Donald Trump failed. King Midas had finally touched something and turned it into silver, instead of gold.

This, to be sure, is every bit as delusional as the derangement syndrome that has captivated their sanity for six months now. What Donald Trump pulled off in Iowa was nothing short of miraculous.

The last time a secular, loud, brash New Yorker who was leading in all the national polls faced Iowa Republican voters — former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in 2008 — he got truly schlonged. Mr. Giuliani came in sixth place with only 4 percent of the vote.

Donald Trump came in second place with an astonishing 24 percent of the vote. He was just 3.3 percentage points behind Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) of Texas, who won the race by shamelessly pandering to the state’s huge evangelical population, which has determined the outcome of every Republican caucus there since at least 2000.

If Rudy Giuliani had done as well in Iowa as Trump did, the media would have declared him the winner and he very likely would rushed through New Hampshire and South Carolina on waves of positive press and his ultimate gambit of winning it all in Florida very likely could have worked. In other words, if Mr. Giuliani had done as well as Mr. Trump did in Iowa, we quite possibly would be referring to him now as former President Giuliani.

But the media hatred for Mr. Trump is so unrestrained that even a stellar accomplishment like he had in Iowa was dismissed as a shattering loss. And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’s third place loss behind Mr. Trump was spun endlessly as some kind of huge victory. This propelled the Florida Republican, until his poor performance in last weekend’s robotic performance in the New Hampshire debate.

What is so amazing about Mr. Trump’s blowout in the nation’s first primary in the Granite State is not just the 2-to-1 win over the next-nearest competitor, but his performance among every demographic group on every single issue.

Among women, middle-aged voters, the elderly, the educated — all people the experts warned would flee from Donald Trump — Mr. Trump managed to win. And he won on every major issue, including the economy, foreign policy and immigration.

Perhaps the sweetest thing out of New Hampshire is how the media will be forced to spin the results. They will, of course, try to minimize Mr. Trump’s thumping.

Then they will be forced to breathe wind into Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s disappointing — but surprising — second-place finish. The Kasich campaign is hopeless going forward. And so the battle rages on for the so-called “establishment lane” with Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and even Ted Cruz piled up behind John Kasich’s hopeless campaign.

Live by the spin, die by the spin.

Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com. Follow him on Twitter at @charleshurt.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Big Journalism, 2016 Presidential Race, Donald Trump,immigration, New Hampshire, John Kasich,rudy giuliani

The Nuclear Option: Donald Trump Built a Juggernaut and Had the Media Pay for It

by CHARLES HURT10 Feb 20163138

Why does the mainstream media heap such scorn and disbelief on Donald Trump over his promise to build a great wall along the border with Mexico — and make Mexico pay for it? After all, Donald Trump has built a winning presidential campaign — and made the media pay for it.

Mr. Trump’s second place finish in Iowa gave respite to the legions of media pundits and establishment flunkies who suffer the worst forms of Donald Trump Derangement Syndrome. They braced for a huge blow-out win in the Corn State. When it didn’t happen, it was like an executioner’s gun jamming. First they flinched, then they blinked a few times and then got up and ran like their hair was on fire.

Ever since, of course, they have been gloating and crowing — from a safe distance — that Donald Trump failed. King Midas had finally touched something and turned it into silver, instead of gold.

This, to be sure, is every bit as delusional as the derangement syndrome that has captivated their sanity for six months now. What Donald Trump pulled off in Iowa was nothing short of miraculous.

The last time a secular, loud, brash New Yorker who was leading in all the national polls faced Iowa Republican voters — former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in 2008 — he got truly schlonged. Mr. Giuliani came in sixth place with only 4 percent of the vote.

Donald Trump came in second place with an astonishing 24 percent of the vote. He was just 3.3 percentage points behind Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) of Texas, who won the race by shamelessly pandering to the state’s huge evangelical population, which has determined the outcome of every Republican caucus there since at least 2000.

If Rudy Giuliani had done as well in Iowa as Trump did, the media would have declared him the winner and he very likely would rushed through New Hampshire and South Carolina on waves of positive press and his ultimate gambit of winning it all in Florida very likely could have worked. In other words, if Mr. Giuliani had done as well as Mr. Trump did in Iowa, we quite possibly would be referring to him now as former President Giuliani.

But the media hatred for Mr. Trump is so unrestrained that even a stellar accomplishment like he had in Iowa was dismissed as a shattering loss. And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’s third place loss behind Mr. Trump was spun endlessly as some kind of huge victory. This propelled the Florida Republican, until his poor performance in last weekend’s robotic performance in the New Hampshire debate.

What is so amazing about Mr. Trump’s blowout in the nation’s first primary in the Granite State is not just the 2-to-1 win over the next-nearest competitor, but his performance among every demographic group on every single issue.

Among women, middle-aged voters, the elderly, the educated — all people the experts warned would flee from Donald Trump — Mr. Trump managed to win. And he won on every major issue, including the economy, foreign policy and immigration.

Perhaps the sweetest thing out of New Hampshire is how the media will be forced to spin the results. They will, of course, try to minimize Mr. Trump’s thumping.

Then they will be forced to breathe wind into Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s disappointing — but surprising — second-place finish. The Kasich campaign is hopeless going forward. And so the battle rages on for the so-called “establishment lane” with Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and even Ted Cruz piled up behind John Kasich’s hopeless campaign.

Live by the spin, die by the spin.

Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com. Follow him on Twitter at @charleshurt.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Big Journalism, 2016 Presidential Race, Donald Trump,immigration, New Hampshire, John Kasich,rudy giuliani

The Nuclear Option: Donald Trump Built a Juggernaut and Had the Media Pay for It

by CHARLES HURT10 Feb 20163138

Why does the mainstream media heap such scorn and disbelief on Donald Trump over his promise to build a great wall along the border with Mexico — and make Mexico pay for it? After all, Donald Trump has built a winning presidential campaign — and made the media pay for it.

Mr. Trump’s second place finish in Iowa gave respite to the legions of media pundits and establishment flunkies who suffer the worst forms of Donald Trump Derangement Syndrome. They braced for a huge blow-out win in the Corn State. When it didn’t happen, it was like an executioner’s gun jamming. First they flinched, then they blinked a few times and then got up and ran like their hair was on fire.

Ever since, of course, they have been gloating and crowing — from a safe distance — that Donald Trump failed. King Midas had finally touched something and turned it into silver, instead of gold.

This, to be sure, is every bit as delusional as the derangement syndrome that has captivated their sanity for six months now. What Donald Trump pulled off in Iowa was nothing short of miraculous.

The last time a secular, loud, brash New Yorker who was leading in all the national polls faced Iowa Republican voters — former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in 2008 — he got truly schlonged. Mr. Giuliani came in sixth place with only 4 percent of the vote.

Donald Trump came in second place with an astonishing 24 percent of the vote. He was just 3.3 percentage points behind Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) of Texas, who won the race by shamelessly pandering to the state’s huge evangelical population, which has determined the outcome of every Republican caucus there since at least 2000.

If Rudy Giuliani had done as well in Iowa as Trump did, the media would have declared him the winner and he very likely would rushed through New Hampshire and South Carolina on waves of positive press and his ultimate gambit of winning it all in Florida very likely could have worked. In other words, if Mr. Giuliani had done as well as Mr. Trump did in Iowa, we quite possibly would be referring to him now as former President Giuliani.

But the media hatred for Mr. Trump is so unrestrained that even a stellar accomplishment like he had in Iowa was dismissed as a shattering loss. And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’s third place loss behind Mr. Trump was spun endlessly as some kind of huge victory. This propelled the Florida Republican, until his poor performance in last weekend’s robotic performance in the New Hampshire debate.

What is so amazing about Mr. Trump’s blowout in the nation’s first primary in the Granite State is not just the 2-to-1 win over the next-nearest competitor, but his performance among every demographic group on every single issue.

Among women, middle-aged voters, the elderly, the educated — all people the experts warned would flee from Donald Trump — Mr. Trump managed to win. And he won on every major issue, including the economy, foreign policy and immigration.

Perhaps the sweetest thing out of New Hampshire is how the media will be forced to spin the results. They will, of course, try to minimize Mr. Trump’s thumping.

Then they will be forced to breathe wind into Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s disappointing — but surprising — second-place finish. The Kasich campaign is hopeless going forward. And so the battle rages on for the so-called “establishment lane” with Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and even Ted Cruz piled up behind John Kasich’s hopeless campaign.

Live by the spin, die by the spin.

Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com. Follow him on Twitter at @charleshurt.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Big Journalism, 2016 Presidential Race, Donald Trump,immigration, New Hampshire, John Kasich,rudy giuliani

The Nuclear Option: No Cure in Sight for Elites’ Donald Trump Derangement Syndrome

by CHARLES HURT29 Jan 2016131

Beware the latest nasty virus sweeping the East Coast, particularly the most elite citadels of New York City and Washington, D.C.

It is a fast-moving disease, highly contagious and attacks the nervous system. Early stages are inexplicable, fast eye-blinking, light palsy, stammering and overbearing snobbery. Sometimes redness of the face and shortness of breath accompany.

Later stages include total delusionment, dementia, inability to think clearly and, ultimately, a madness that cannot be contained.

Basic rule of thumb is that if you are blinking and twitching like Chief Inspector Charles Dreyfus, Inspector Jacques Clouseau’s boss in Pink Panther, then it is still early and there is still hope.

In final stages, patients are often found wild-eyed, naked, frothing at mouth and writhing on the floor. This behavior has been likened to that of Antonio Salieri in the final scenes of “Amadeus.”

Researchers have yet to arrive at a scientific name for the debilitating disease but it is generally referred to as Donald Trump Derangement Syndrome (DTDS). It is found in its most virulent and highly contagious strain among media and punditry circles and top ranks of Republican Party leaders.

While researchers are still confounded about almost everything about DTDS, they do believe that early detection could be vital. Here are symptoms and remedies they recommend:

The disease-stricken often say things like, “He is Hitler!”

It is best to calmly explain to the person that Adolph Hitler exterminated six million Jews. Mr. Trump has not. Also, advise the patient to read “Mein Kampf,” and then read “Art of the Deal.”

Some victims, it is found, take the extermination of six million Jews more seriously and, instead, compare Mr. Trump to “Mussolini,” kind of a Hilter lite. Sometimes in their hallucinations, people suffering DTDS see a similarity in the ways both men purse their lips and speak.

Best remedy is to explain that Benito Mussolini was Hitler’s stooge and, to date, it is safe to say Donald Trump has never been anybody’s stooge.

Another symptom has people his hysterics over how “vulgar” Donald Trump is and talking about how he lacks the virtue and morals to be president.

Recommended remedy is to explain to victim how Lyndon Baines Johnson used to force reporters and staffers to join him in the bathroom to conduct business while he took care of his own business in front of them.

Or have them read the memoir detailing how John F. Kennedy took the virginity of a teenage intern within minutes of meeting her while she was touring the White House.

It is advised not to get into the known exploits of Bill Clinton because, well, it is just so disgusting that it could trigger other complicating illnesses, such as vomiting.

A startling recent symptom has one member of Congress demanding to know whether Donald Trump has repented for past sins. The best remedy for this is to remind members of Congress they are not preachers and ordering people into the confessional booth is both very creepy and unconstitutional and totally violates the separation of church and state in America.

Some victims of DTDS are found agonizing about how Donald Trump threatens to destroy the Constitution.

It is best to advise these people that Donald Trump is the most litigious person to ever run for president and that the very foundation of litigiousness is the Constitution. He probably reveres the Constitution more highly than anybody suffering from DTDS.

Sadly, researchers do not have the slightest hope of a cure for those in advanced stages of the disease. The only known Hail Mary prescriptions have been to either send them to Syria as DTDS refugees or allow them to sneak across the Mexican border before the Trump Wall and Casino is built.

Scientists, meanwhile, are hurriedly developing an 8-year, slow-release Ambien that can be taken now so that the patient wakes up in the final months of the Trump administration, once America has been Made Great Again.

Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com and on Twitter via@charleshurt.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race

Fox’s News Corp Is a Major Donor to the Clintons

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

by PATRICK HOWLEY29 Jan 2016357

The parent company of Fox News has helped to finance the career of Hillary Clinton. In fact, the company has helped a lot.

21st Century Fox/News Corp. ranks ninth on the list of the top “corporate and union donors to the Clintons over two decades,” according to a little-noticed list compiled byThe Wall Street Journal in 2014. The list counts donations from “companies, foundations, and employees.”

21st Century Fox also ranks as the 13th biggest contributor to Hillary Clinton during her political career, according to a database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics. The database credits the Rupert Murdoch-owned company as having pitched in $340,936 to her campaigns. That puts Fox just below Lehman Brothers, but eleven spots below second-place Goldman Sachs, on the pro-Clinton list.

“The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates,” the database notes.

Murdoch’s charitable foundation and his son James are also contributors to the Clinton Foundation, which is nowreportedly being examined by the FBI, which is investigating Hillary Clinton for possible Espionage Act violations regarding her private email use and also possible instances of public corruption regarding the Foundation.

The News Corporation Foundation is listed on the Clinton Foundation website as a donor to the tune of between $500,001 and $1,000,000, placing it alongside progressive donor heavyweights like Peter Lewis and Paul Newman’s foundation.

James R. Murdoch, meanwhile, is listed as a Clinton Foundation donor to the tune of between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000.

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump skipped Thursday night’s Fox News debate, which included Megyn Kelly as a moderator. Kelly has a track record of targeting Trump on the debate stage.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race,FOX NEWS, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton

POLITICO: Megyn Kelly Just Did Trump’s Dirty Work for Him, Kneecapped Rivals

Getty Images

by BREITBART NEWS29 Jan 2016100

This article was originally published by Politico:

Donald Trump skipped last night’s Fox News debate in a fit of pique over the “very biased” Megyn Kelly. But since the shocking things he does and says always seem to work out for him, someone else used his pet issue of immigration to tie his top Republican rivals into knots. And that someone else was Megyn Kelly.

Kelly flummoxed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), currently polling second and third in Iowa, with brutal video montages that vividly demonstrated their flip-flops on immigration reform. To make things even more delicious for Trump, his other favorite bullying target, “low-energy” Jeb Bush, helped twist the knife into Rubio. And another one of his punching bags, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), helped deliver the beatdown to Cruz.
Story Continued Below

It’s hard to see how the debate could have gone any better for Trump if he had actually participated. Meanwhile, Democrats who hope to expand their majorities among Latino voters had to enjoy watching two Cuban-American Republicans scrambling to walk back their previous flirtations with reform.

Read the rest of the article here.

 

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race,Donald Trump, Megyn Kelly, Fox Debate

Drudge: ‘The Seven Dwarfed’ by Donald Trump

Seven Dwarfed (Drudge)

by JOEL B. POLLAK29 Jan 2016455

The Drudge Report summarized Thursday night’s GOP debate, which frontrunner Donald Trump skipped, with the headline: “The Seven Dwarfed!”

That assessment matches the consensus, left and right, from media observers: that Trump benefited from staging a fundraiser for wounded veterans, where he appeared relaxed, magnanimous, and in command, rather than placing himself in the crosshairs of the Fox News moderators and his Republican rivals.

The Washington Post‘s Dan Balz wrote that Sens. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), two of Trump’s main rivals, had “failed to seize the Trumpless moment,” opening new space for struggling GOP rivals. Even Jim Geraghty of National Review, which devoted its last issue to attacking Trump, conceded that Trump had likely benefited from avoiding the “flip-flopping immigration bloodbath” that the GOP debate became in his absence.

The Cruz camp appears to have made a strategic miscalculation. By sticking with the debate, and accusing Trump of cowardice, Cruz hoped to place himself at the head of the anti-Trump opposition. Instead, however, he exposed himself to a gang-tackle by the moderators and the other candidates. Had he joined Trump in protest at Fox News’ behavior, he would have signaled that he and Trump were the prohibitive final two candidates in the GOP primary.

Trump may have drawn Cruz into a direct fight before the conservative Tea Party favorite from Texas was fully prepared for it. As strong as his organization is in Iowa, Cruz’s political challenge remains distinguishing himself from the rest of the field, rather than overtaking Trump.

While ratings for the Fox News debate were still high, they were about half of the ratings for the first Fox News debate last August. Ratings for Trump’s fundraiser, carried on several networks, are not available as of this writing.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Big Journalism, 2016 Presidential Race, FOX NEWS, Donald Trump, Drudge, GOP Debate, Drudge Report,seven dwarfed

How Donald Trump Beat Roger Ailes at His Own Game

Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty, Frederick M. Brown/Getty

by TONY LEE27 Jan 20163233

Did Fox News expect anything less from Donald Trump?

After the network taunted the GOP frontrunner for two days leading up to Thursday’s Fox News GOP presidential debate, Trump finally decided to skip the debate on Tuesday evening, setting off another chaotic media firestorm that will make him the centerpiece of every story from here to the Iowa Caucuses on Monday.

By pushing Trump over the edge in what the network may now clearly view as a miscalculation, Fox News may have inadvertently done Trump a favor while doing itself a huge disservice.

When Trump and Fox News began sparring over Megyn Kelly’s objectiveness at the beginning of the week, Fox News boss Roger Ailes may have figured that the combativeness would create more controversy, which would lead to even bigger ratings for Thursday’s debate.

Since the Republican National Committee cut ties with National Review as a debate partner after National Review published its anti-Trump issue, Trump felt that Fox News should have replaced Kelly with a more objective moderator, especially after Kelly helped National Review Editor Rich Lowry gin up the magazine’s “Against Trump” manifesto last week.

“Sooner or later Donald Trump, even if he’s president, is going to have to learn that he doesn’t get to pick the journalists—we’re very surprised he’s willing to show that much fear about being questioned by Megyn Kelly,” Fox News said in a Monday statement.

After Trump polled his Instagram followers on Tuesday about whether he should participate in the Fox News debate (Trump asked: “Megyn Kelly is really biased against me. She knows that, I know that, everybody knows that. Do you really think she could be fair at a debate?”), Fox News inexplicably upped the ante by mocking and taunting Trump in an unprecedented statement to left-leaning Mediaite:

We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.

Perhaps Ailes wanted to get an over-the-top response from Trump so the network could hype the Kelly v. Trump clash like Vince McMahon promotes Wrestlemania. Controversy does indeed create cash—and ratings. But even veteran CNN journalist John King said he had never seen a media organization—let alone one that claims to be “fair and balanced”—issue such a statement, which inexplicably turned the process for choosing the country’s next president into a joke.

Fox News’s taunt was the last straw for Trump, who decided soon after that he was done playing Ailes’s games after the “wise-guy press release.” After reading it, Trump said, “I said, ‘bye, bye.’”

After blasting “lightweight” Kelly as a “third-rate” journalist at an Iowa event, Trump said that his decision to skip the Fox News debate was “pretty close to irrevocable.”

“Fox is playing games,” Trump said. “They can’t toy with me like they toy with everybody else. Let them have the debate. Let’s see how they do with the ratings.”

Soon after Trump’s Tuesday evening Iowa event, Trump Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski told the Washington Post that Trump is “definitely not participating in the Fox News debate. His word is his bond.”

Game over.

Instead, Trump will hold a town hall event to raise money for Wounded Warriors while his rivals debate for three tedious hours. Fox News’s advertisers may even want some of their money back.

Ailes may really want to “save the country”from Trump, but his taunting press release, which was reportedly 100% his, may have unintentionally done Trump many favors while backfiring big time on Fox News if Trump keeps his word and skips the debate.

First, Fox News’s childish press release from left field proved to Trump that the network had no intention of being impartial, and it gave him the perfect excuse to skip a debate from which he did not have much to gain. Frontrunners with huge leads routinely avoid giving their upstart challengers debates because there is not much to gain and everything to lose. Now, Trump won’t have to go through Fox News’s anti-Trump gauntlet while fending off seven challengers bent on dethroning him. It also allows Trump to separate himself from his crowded field of challengers.

Second, unlike other GOP candidates, Trump has never needed Fox News. Because of his unmatched celebrity and near-universal name recognition, Trump has been able to go over the heads of the mainstream media cable and network news networks in an unprecedented way this election cycle, getting his message—and criticisms of other candidates—directly to voters. And as the frontrunner heading into Iowa, he doesn’t need a Fox News debate to close the deal with his supporters.

But Fox News needs Trump for ratings. Already, Ailes has reportedly been desperately trying to reach out to Trump, who has reportedly told Fox News that he will only field calls from Rupert Murdoch. Fox News will probably now have to make major concessions to get Trump to participate in the debate.

The one downside of skipping the debate for Trump is that he may leave himself open to three hours of attacks without being able to defend himself in real time. But Trump could easily display his mastery of social media and Tweet his counterattacks. Or better yet, Trump could go on rival networks the next morning and have comebacks ready for everything that was said about him the night before. By saturating the media the morning after the debate, when final impressions about what happened the night before are congealed, Trump could have the last word on every issue/criticism/candidate in the crucial few days before Iowans vote since Trump will be the story regardless of what happens at the debate. Nobody, after all, knows the“orchestra pit theory of politics” better than Ailes. And Trump’s media appearances on Friday morning will bigfoot anything that happened the night before.

Thursday’s debate will not be as compelling without Trump and may resemble a glorified undercard debate. It will lack drama and, hence, ratings.  John Kasich will continue to appeal to liberals. Jeb Bush’s new haircut, posture, and gestures will not convince viewers he has more energy. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie will try his best to be relevant by attacking the gobbledygook spoken by the Senators. The moderators will probably ignore Dr. Ben Carson again. And Sens. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) will drone on like Senators and viewers will think at times that they are watching C-SPAN.

By skipping the debate, Trump will only reinforce his strengths among his supporters. Trump has drawn new voters into the political process and rocketed to the top of nearly every poll because blue-collar Americans think he will be their “jackass” who will stick up for the country and their interests against Washington’s permanent political class and the global elite that have colluded to screw them over. By giving Fox News the proverbial middle finger, Trump reinforces his anti-establishment/outsider bonafides.

Trump’s potential absence from the debate, though, presents some dangers for Fox News’s brand.

Conservative voters felt that Fox News had a finger on the scale for establishment GOP candidate Mitt Romney during the 2012 election cycle. And after the network hired CNN retreads and endlessly promoted centrist Kelly after the 2012 election, many of the network’s core viewers unenthusiastically watched Fox News because it was the least offensive news outlet on television. Kelly’s giggling “love-fest” with Michael Moore on Tuesday evening did the network no favors with heartland viewers that Rush Limbaugh saiddo not think Fox News is the “conservative network that it used to be.”

The network’s treatment of Trump has indeed only reinforced the suspicions many Fox News viewers have had about the network’s move toward the center. When Fox News and Kelly tried to take out Trump’s knees in the first debate by painting him as a sexist with a misleading and loaded question that accused Trump of referring to women as “pigs,” “dogs,” “disgusting animals” and saying that it was a “pretty picture” to see a “Celebrity Apprentice” contestant “on her knees,” the backlash was immediate. A Fox News sourcetold New York magazine that “ in the beginning, virtually 100 percent of the emails were against Megyn Kelly” and Ailes “was not happy” because “Most of the Fox viewers were taking Trump’s side.”

One can only wonder how Fox News viewers will react after the network taunted and mocked the GOP presidential frontrunner and compelled him to walk away from the last debate before the Iowa caucuses.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Big Journalism, 2016 Presidential Race

FLASHBACK: Ronald Reagan Skipped Last Debate Before IA Caucus – Went on to Win in Landslide

2016 ElectionJan 27, 2016

#BOYCOTTFOXDEBATE #NOFOXDEBATE

Jim Hoft Jan 27th, 2016 7:57 am

On Tuesday night Donald Trump and the Trump campaign announced that GOP frontrunner Trump will skip the FOX News GOP Primary debate this week in Iowa.

Trump is not the first Republican candidate to skip a debate.
Ronald Reagan skipped the Republican debate ahead of the 1980 Iowa caucus.
Bloomberg reported:

Trump isn’t the first top-tier presidential candidate to skip a debate. Ronald Reagan did not attend a Republican debate ahead of the 1980 Iowa caucuses, which he lost to George H.W. Bush. Reagan went on to the win the nomination and the presidency.

Reagan went on to win in a landslide.

Fox News Worse than Liberal Media to Donald Trump

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

by JOEL B. POLLAK27 Jan 2016983

Donald Trump is boycotting Thursday’s final pre-Iowa GOP debate. And every Republican candidate should. Fox News is treating Trump worse than any liberal media outlet would–worse, even than John Harwood and CNBC.

Last week, moderator Megan Kellyconvened a special panel of anti-Trump writers from National Review to mark the launch of their attack on Trump. This week, Fox News prepared for the debate byinviting a Muslim activist who has criticized Trump to be one of three YouTube personalities to question the candidates. And on Tuesday, as Trump considered whether to participate in the debate, Fox issued a petulant, snarky press statement mocking him:

We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.

No candidate should agree to participate under those conditions. Indeed, the other GOP candidates–including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who led the charge against Harwood–should be standing with Trump against Fox, on principle, instead ofattacking him. And conservatives who are mocking Trump should look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they are applying a different standard to center-right Fox News than they do to the mainstream media.

Fox News’ behavior after Trump’s withdrawal vindicates his decision. The network issued a statement that attacked Trump politically–“We’re not sure how Iowans are going to feel about him walking away from them at the last minute”–and accused him of “terrorizations.” Kelly followed up with radical leftist filmmaker Michael Moore on her program for what the Washington Post called a “televised love-in,” where Moore defended her against Trump.

How hard would it have been for Fox News simply to issue a statement expressing disappointment and reiterating that the debate would proceed as planned? Instead, Fox cast aside neutrality and integrity to join the political fray.

Indeed, Politico is openly wonderingwhether Trump walked into Fox News’ “trap.” No news network should try to “trap” a presidential candidate, but that is what Fox News appears to have done to Trump, damning him either way.

Every candidate should expect difficult questions, and no presidential candidate has the right to dictate to networks which journalists should be allowed to ask them. If it were just a matter of Trump ducking Kelly’s tough questions, he would deserve to be criticized. After all, as Trump himself once told Kelly, debating takes courage. The nation already has one president who thinks he can bully the media, and Fox News in particular. It does not need another.

But Fox News’ behavior towards Trump is the kind of bias viewers have turned to Fox to avoid. We would not tolerate it from NBC or CNN–and we should not tolerate it when Fox News sinks to–and below–their level.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Big Journalism, 2016 Presidential Race, FOX NEWS, Donald Trump, GOP Debate,
boycottfoxdebate,

Glenn Beck Tells Iowa Crowd He Prefers Bernie Sanders Over Donald Trump

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Glenn Beck endorsed Senator Ted Cruz this weekend for President of the United States.Beck traveled to Iowa to endorse Cruz at a Saturday rally.

This was a big endorsement for Ted Cruz.

Beck reportedly said he preferred Socialist Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump.Seriously?The Hill reported:

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck on Saturday endorsed Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz for the White House.

Beck compared Cruz to the 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, and gave him a compass that belonged to the first one, George Washington.

“I’m taking a very big risk here and gambling on it, but this is how much I believe in Ted Cruz,” Beck said at a Cruz rally in Ankeny, Iowa.

“I’d like you to hold onto that,” he said, passing Cruz the compass, “to make sure your compass is square and you stay true” to your values.

Beck said he had never endorsed a presidential candidate in his 40 years of broadcasting, but he made an exception because of the urgency of the moment…

…He said he even prefers Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” running in the Democratic presidential primary, to Trump.

“Honesty, faith and truth are basic requirements. And quite honestly, I have to tell you, this probably isn’t going to go over very well, that’s why I like Bernie Sanders,” he said. “Bernie Sanders is like, ‘Yep, I’m a socialist.’

“I can actually sit at a table with a man who says, ‘Yes, I’m a socialist, and yes, I don’t like what we are doing, we should be more like Denmark,’ ” he added.

So how exactly will Bernie Sanders push forward the conservative cause?

UPDATE: For the record, Glenn Beck said similar things about John McCain.

COMMENTS

Ingraham Blasts National Review For Damaging GOP’s 2016 Campaign With Anti-Trump Tirade

by JULIA HAHN24 Jan 2016Washington D.C.169

Nationally-syndicated talk radio host Laura Ingraham slammed the National Review for what she described as the publication’s attempt to further shrink the Republican Party.

Ingraham warned not only about National Review’s interference in the primary, but also the effects it may have in the general election. “How is it smart to close the door to Trump’s voters and to populism in general?” Ingraham asked in a Friday column.

Ingraham explained that if Rich Lowry and National Review’s “Manhattan-based editors” continue to alienate blue-collar Americans who are concerned about immigration, trade and foreign policy, “National Review Editor Rich Lowry and his people will be left preaching their narrow doctrine to a smaller and smaller audience.”

Ingraham explained that Trump’s “supporters are pushing for three big things”:

A return to traditional GOP law and order practices when it comes to illegal immigration.

A return to a more traditional GOP foreign policy that would put the national interest ahead of globalism.

A return to a more traditional GOP trade policy that would analyze trade deals from the perspective of the country as a whole and not blindly support any deal — even one negotiated by President Obama.

Ingraham explained National Review’s history of trying to “excommunicate conservatives,” who are skeptical of more foreign military engagements, contradicts the big tent philosophy of Ronald Reagan. “There is room for all voices in the GOP ‘big tent’ — including relative newcomers like Trump, who has garnered such a following,” Ingraham said. “One of the many reasons I loved Reagan is that he understood how important it was to grow the conservative movement.”

Ingraham explained that this is not the first time National Review has expressed its disdain for conservatives with whom the publication disagrees on certain issues. Ingraham writes: “The folks at NR launched a similar effort to excommunicate conservatives in 2003, with a much-hyped cover story titled ‘Unpatriotic Conservatives.’ Back then it was Pat Buchanan and the now-deceased Bob Novak who were the targets.” Ingraham explained that the Nation Review believed that “these ‘disgruntled paleos,’ weren’t truly conservative because they opposed the war in Iraq.”

Ingraham writes, “As it turned out, of course, that small band of thinkers knew more about what was in the national interest than anyone at National Review or myself, who was also a strong advocate for Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

While National Review is determined to take out Trump, the publication hasinvested considerable effort in boosting up mass migration enthusiasts like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). While Pat Buchanan has described Trump as the “future” of the Republican Party, Rubio and Ryan’s affection for the longstanding donor-class agenda– i.e. more foreign military engagements, more globalist trade deals and mass migration– seems to make them more compatible with the Republicanism of the past. Jonathan Chait has even observed that when pressed, Rubio is unable to identify a single substantive policy issue that separates him from Mitt Romney or George Bush: when “asked if he disagrees with Bush or Romney on anything at all, Rubio does not directly offer any examples,” Chait writes.

Chait also pointed out that Rubio’s effort to set himself apart from Bush and Romney by saying his agenda is focused on the 21st century seems confused, since Bush and Romney all campaigned for President in the 21st century. Nearly 1/6th of the 21st century will already have been concluded by the time the next President assumes the Oval Office. Chait explains:

Rubio is a George W. Bush Republican who needs to come up with nonsense concepts to deny the fact that he’s a George W. Bush Republican, like pretending his ideas don’t relate to Bush’s because they’re from different centuries. He can’t name a single actual disagreement with Bush or Romney because there aren’t any.

Ingraham warned that if the GOP continues to “devot[e] itself” to defending and expanding the legacy of George W. Bush, it will come at the expense of the country and the Party’s peril:

They [i.e. the National Reviewcontributors] are… inviting those who disagree with Bush on those points to leave conservatism and start seeking their allies elsewhere. This is an absolute disaster for conservatism. It is obvious by now that Bushism — however well-intentioned it may appear on paper — does not work for the average American. It is also clear that Bushism has almost no support within the rank and file of the GOP, much less within the country as a whole. Making the tenets of Bushism into an orthodoxy that conservatives cannot question will cripple conservatism for years to come… If the conservative movement devotes itself to defending the legacy of George W. Bush at all costs, it will become irrelevant to the debate over how to make things better for most Americans.

 

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Big Journalism, 2016 Presidential Race, Laura Ingraham, National Review