HILLARY AND HOLT THE PRESSES

It is curious how everyone's opinion regarding the first presidential debate differed as to who won, especially when the deck was stacked and the questions appeared to be more about theater, rather than important issues. It was a canned performance by Hillary and a somewhat uptight debate by Trump.  

Trump didn't lose but neither did he win. Hillary did not lose, in the sense, that she was able to spoon her political pablum without having a medical meltdown, but neither did she win. Either both won, or neither lost or it was a tie. Instead many voters scratched their heads and wondered who approved these questions? When does  the media manipulation ever stop, and is anyone in media capable of being a fair moderator of politics?  

How does the birth issue get airtime? Isn't that a DNC talking point packaged to the press in order to label Trump a racist? How is the birther issue a legitimate debate question while the multiple Clinton lies are kept out of the debate spotlight? If the media claims the birther question was asked to probe Trump's character then why was Clinton's character shielded by never asking her any tough questions about her questionable conduct in office? There is no doubt the birther question was used to unravel Trump, toward Hillary's benefit, period. Sorry, Hillary and Lester Holt, it did not work. Trump call out that lie.

When did Trump saying he was against the Iraq war become refuted because of another comment made public? When did Trump's opinion of the war become a lie, and a lie so great, it overshadows, Hillary Clinton's history of criminal lying? Her Benghazi lying, her e-mail lying and all her lies dating back to Watergate? Why wasn't her character explored by Lester the left's jester. Clinton's lies speak directly to her character, or should I say, Hillary's lack thereof, with respect to integrity.  Once again, Holt made sure Hillary was not embarrassed while he tried to paint Trump's face red. Once again, it didn't work. 

When did Trump's tax return being public rise in importance above Hillary's 250 thousand dollar speeches to Wall Street, or her thousands of deleted (yoga-cough) e-mails or her pay to play Foundation corruption? Once again, Hillary and Holt, believes the public is as dumb as rocks and treats the American voter like Jonathan Gruber treated them with Obamacare. Their political parlor tricks were obvious and laughable especially if they think they can equate, Hillary's criminal deceitful lies, by harping on Trump's business miscues. 

The first debate had three takeaways. One, that Candy Crowley's ghostly media will continue to shadow box their bias in Hillary's corner, and Trump needs to know when to punch and when to smile and laugh off their absurd charade. 

Two, voters on both sides want to see a little blood in the water but not in the way that makes either candidate seem a bully or desperate. Trump should have shown less defensiveness toward Clinton's red herring issue over his business bankruptcies, and instead redirect to Hillary's many scandals while she held the public's money and trust in such a selfish and self-serving way. When Hillary brings up character, temperament or the issue of a conflict of interest, then Trump needs to remind the public of Clinton's duplicity with the public on many issues. 

Three, at the end of the day, a debate win or loss means nothing if it doesn't sway voters to mark a ballot in your favor. The candidates are really trying to sell themselves to the late deciders and frankly in this election it is hard to imagine many voters still on the fence. 

Clinton may have won the pre-programmed, robot delivered, policy that promises everything, and means nothing, nothing more than more failing progressive delusions, while Trump did not lose, because he kept his composure and did not come across as bullying Clinton. He came across far more genuine, like him or not. Hillary seemed proud of her deviously delivered spat of generalizations, she called plans but the public should see as pander puff.

Some  criticize Trump for not going for the kill shot, or for allowing Clinton to bait him into agreeing with her, rather than excoriating her socialistic viewpoint. However, this is the first debate, and Trump must learn the rules, you know, the media bias rules; that ask attack questions of conservatives and support the lying answers of the Democrats. In the future debates, Trump needs to learn how to ignore the media traps and deftly lead Clinton to be on the defensive even though she will be protected by the media's moat, around her castle.  

Trump needs to remember that truth, doesn't need protest, and that lies are better addressed with a smile, and a wink to the public, when he coolly recounts that Hillary is incapable of being honest, transparent and trustworthy on any issue. He must remember to let her give him the rope and then smile as he wraps it around her shoulders.

Not surprised by this first debate, after all, one of these candidates is a consummate lawyerly politician with the media in her back pocket, while the other is an outsider and business man that thinks logically. Welcome to the debate deck, Donald! It is stacked, hacked and filled with the sound of quack. Hillary and the media will attack, but you need to ignore them, stay on message and speak to the audience.

 Oh, and I guess Trump, is the winner of the debate, only by the fact, that he didn't say or gesture anything that the baiting media, could catch by misconstruction, and then wrap up in newspapers, sending a foul order over his campaign by dangling odious headlines. Holt the presses, Trump didn't bite.

DEBATE OR DE BAIT?

Once again the liberal media shows no respect as it demeans and debases conservative candidates in an effort to start a brawl rather than a debate. Their bias and open hostility towards opposing views is now interfering with the undecided voters right to understand the differences of GOP candidates on the issues, and this tar and feathering is getting old, frustrating and downright perverse.

It is another debate in which the public is treated to a reality television show where the object of the game is to dishonor and make fools out of not just the candidates, but the viewers, who are expecting that media will ask simple, direct and relevant questions. Instead the bias that once was done in subtlety by a liberal loving media is now an open shameless farce of impartiality.

The recent DNC debate put on by CNN did not ask Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders tough questions nor did Anderson Cooper ask humbling questions, such as CNBC's first question to the GOP candidates; "to name their greatest weakness", which was intended to set up the candidates for criticism.  

About the only thing fair about the debates was that the liberal media was equally inhospitable to all the GOP candidates, unlike the first GOP debate when Fox news targeted Donald Trump, CNBC tried to spread the acrimonious attitude to every conservative on stage equally.  

However beyond the awful bias there was good news, such as when one candidate namely Ted Cruz, arched his back, leaned into the microphone and challenged the smarmy attitude of the impertinent moderators and with grace and style swatted the left and praised his fellow rivals. That caused the rest of the GOP hopefuls to also grow a spine and push back against the scripted hammer slammer fest.

This was when the voters clapped and sang around the political hat, knowing that if the GOP stands up to the press they become impotent and flaccid. For far too long the GOP politicians have tried to ingratiate themselves with these boorish media types that are only aroused at the sound of their leftist voices, in the hopes that they would be treated with class. Instead, their public images get trashed as cavalierly as junior high school girls, by frustrated and insecure boys unable to secure a date so they impugn the girl's reputation rather than admit their dating defeat to peers.

You can't fix stupid, and you can't redeem the dishonorable. Cowering to those that mock you is self flagellation and stupefying, much like Obama praising his Iran deal while the Iran leaders shout "Death to America". It is weak, demoralizing and gutless along with being one of the main reasons conservatives fret over the fate of the GOP party and its inability to fight for the causes it professes to believe in.

Yet, there is hope. Some of those candidates on the stage showed courage. Dare I say it, leadership qualities that have been so lacking in Washington and today more than ever are desperately needed.

Conservatives, Christians, blue dog Democrats, patriotic Independents and libertarians may be treated by the liberal media as lepers, but we don't have leprosy, we have sanity. We may be maligned by an extremely divisive President but we are not victims, we are seafarers in search of a real captain. We might be prodded like cattle by party leadership, betrayed by congressional backroom deals and taken as pushovers, but we possess inner fortitude and strength that comes from truth over lies.

We must not debate with ourselves any longer or be baited by liberals to feel shame for our patriotic and religious beliefs just because they hold over our heads the threat of calling us racists, bigots and homophobes. The liberals may have the power of the press but power is only daunting if one fears it. How can we be afraid of those so corrupted by their fleeting power that they pretend to be gods by denying and mocking those that love God? 

We should be proud Americans unafraid of differing views and impervious to the political correct bullies seeking to undermine our culture, our religion, our heritage and our system of government. This debate highlighted to all reasonable citizens, that given the current atmosphere of political narcissism, given the  expediency of the political establishment and given the grave challenges the future holds for our country, there is one quality above all others that our next president must have, it is political fearlessness.

  

Time to stop being the left's bait, time for patriots to ask the right question of every candidate seeking to sit in the oval office. The question: Do you just want political power or do you love America enough to restore her from the left's socialism, and fearlessly lead her back on the constitutional road our forefathers intended?   

FLYING UNDER THE RADAR

The news media outlets enjoy increased ratings when compelling events such as the missing Malaysian passenger jet disappears from the sky without a trace. They know that the public is drawn into the mystery by a combination of compassion for the missing passengers along with sympathy for their families and the fascination that in today’s fish bowl of technological voyeurism momentous events can still avoid detection.

What happens when major news events strike at the same time? When like today, there is another arguably bigger and more historic story happening, Russia’s invasion of Crimea, why does the media gives it second coverage billing?

The debate over what to cover and how much time to devote to one story over another invokes the age old enigmatic question “which came first, the chicken or the egg”, or in this case, which comes first, viewer driven ratings or significant news that could lead to a world war? 

Some in the news business will tell you that the public always controls the coverage, while others will argue that real news reporting should not be concerned with ratings and instead be governed by simply reporting significant news stories. They claim to not write or make-up the news but merely report it. However, media exercises sole control over whether a story is the lead or buried in the news, along with the amount of time devoted to a story and how comprehensive the coverage is on any news story.  

Therefore when Americans complain that our newsrooms are corrupt, and in the tank for either (mostly both) entertainment ratings or the Obama Administration the proof is in the coverage of the Malaysian jetliner versus the Russian takeover of a sovereign’s state’s land. One story seems to be fueled with more speculation than facts as it flies all around the airwaves constantly focused on the mystery of the Malaysian plane. However, the other major story (Russia annexing Crimea) which is a clear act of unbridled territorial aggression, that has the real possibility of escalating to a world war in the near future is in a holding pattern at the media airport of landing coverage priorities. 

The point is this; if newsrooms want to be taken seriously, claiming they are not info-entertainment like supermarket tabloids and the John Stewart Daily show then why is the Malaysian jetliner story topping the news coverage? If the argument is that we are covering the stories people want to hear then, why not cover the Benghazi and the IRS corruption scandals that somehow have gone media dark and silent?  If the argument is that there is nothing more to report on those stories, then that fails to explain hours of news reporting on speculation as to the whereabouts of a plane when no new information has been discovered. 

Where is the news coverage speculating that the Obama administration covered up Benghazi to win election? Similar to using retired airline pilots to wax about possible theories about the missing plane, why then has media not used ex-diplomats and ex-CIA agents to fill a panel to speculate on what happened in Benghazi?

 

Where is the speculative reporting that the IRS was used by the Obama administration to silence the growing Tea Party groups to organize educated voters to the polls in 2012? 

The news media cannot have it both ways. They can’t argue that they don’t control the news and merely report it and then filter it through their elitist’s lens of priority. They may not make up the news stories (ahem I guess) but by controlling the air time, front page space and the extent of both coverage and investigative follow-up, they do set the news table. They do determine what news is important. They do influence what news Americans are informed about and what news is not noteworthy for Americans. Media does control the information agenda and they have not acted responsibly or fairly to a simple standard of unbiased honesty.

To argue that the repeated lies told by this administration over a terrorist attack in Benghazi during the 2012 election is not at least (we think much more) as egregious as Watergate is not credible. Equally, to have no follow-up investigations and no questions to the White House amid the many still unanswered questions about Benghazi shows more than political bias, it bespeaks a media cover-up.

The IRS scandal is a huge criminal-political corruption yet it has been ignored by our so-called professional journalists. For the majority of media outlets to just take the President’s word that there is not a “smidgeon” of corruption done by one of the most intimidating of government agencies is an appalling indictment of media collusion not just bias.

Congress has low polling numbers because it ignores the will of the American people and seems only responsive to inside the beltway lobbyists. Media is a close second in those low polling numbers because it enjoys a platform to bring important information to Americans but it squanders that for ratings revenue and whines that it is the viewers fault.

Those in media that argue that Justin Bierber latest folly is more popular to the viewers than the NSA spying scandal are using excuses, allowing their network-needs to continue feeding Americans “Bierber celebrity-Pablum” to distract us from their media malfeasance. We might agree that too many Americans are obsessed with celebrity news and might be bored to change the channel but then so aren’t school children easily bored. Do we then teach children only information they deem popular and throw away vital curriculum?

Responsible journalism requires reporting important news stories period. Otherwise they are misusing the freedom of the press to pander for ratings, pick political sides, hide unflattering revelations about our government and making all Americans more vulnerable to tyranny.

There is a reason that freedom of speech is the first Amendment in our Bill of Rights. There is equally a reason that Obama’s promise of an open and transparent government was and is a fairy tale.

There is a reason why Americans have anger and distrust for our government when both Congress and the Press owned by corporations tell us to look up at the sky, “Da plane Boss, da plane” in order to distract us from their manipulation of our constitutional rights.

More than ever Americans believe that our government is flying under the radar and increasing its covert corruption under our noses with the oligarchic Press turning off the transponder of truth and burying the black box of facts in the propaganda waters off the coast of Fantasy Island. We are rightfully worried that instead of America living out her dreams those elitist power brokers are creating America’s nightmare.

“The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.” (George Orwell)

 Claudia Roazen is a writer from Maine. Her book “ARE WE THE SHEEPLE OR THE PEOPLE? AN AMERICAN WOMAN ON FIRE!” can be purchased at AMAZON.COM or on her website http://claudiawrites-rights.blogspot.com/

BLOGGERS SILENCED? NEVER!

The President told Americans to not listen to lobbyists, bloggers, radio personalities or activists? This is coming from the mouth of a man whose short resume to be President of the United States prominently featured his community organizing for Acorn. Now as President he wants Americans to listen only to who, him?

Call me a racist, even though I am not. Call me a bigot, even though I am not. Call me obstructionists, even though I am not. Call me a Hobbit even though I am not. Call me a wacko bird, even though I am not. Call me a purist even though I am not but call me for patriotic citizen duty to defend our constitutional Republic and I am ready and not intimidated.

Regardless of your political party affiliation when has America ever before had such a partisan President that feels the need to demonize his opposition and show such arrogant cynicism to those that disagree with his policies?

When has expecting our representatives and President to be faithful to their constitutional oaths altered to a radical position? When has calling for small and limited government that affords maximum individual freedom become labeled as a destructive American philosophy?  

Obama has been condescending and condemning of conservative patriots from the moment he stepped into office. He has been aided by a mainstream media that has bashed everyone who dissents as a bigoted small minded racist and it is not just wrong it is despicably divisive.

As a citizen I am expected to respect the office of President and accept election losses as a good sport and wish the President well in running the country. That does not mean I must accept, like, promote and agree with his policies while abdicating my rational, common sense, ideology and opinion. It is healthy to have dissent, healthy to have debate, healthy to disagree and healthy to be recalcitrant to one’s core principles and values. I don’t begrudge President Obama’s liberal ideology why does he resent all those who hold the opposite beliefs?

No American should just listen to politicians instead one must seek to assess the background, previous policies, voting record, party affiliation and most importantly ideology. If we voted purely on what a pundit, radio host, blogger, activist or friend said about a candidate then we would all be low-information voters.  

Our civic duty is to vote for the candidate in the primary that represents your Country, Constitution and state or district’s best interest not because you like a candidate’s style or personality. Unfortunately we voters are too easily fooled by charlatans that bait and switch our vote. It is okay to make mistakes; it is not okay to give up the search for honorable office holders.

The Republicans and the Democrats as Parties have betrayed the American people, one by seeking to ignore and alter our Bill of Rights and the other by capitulating to this erosion for political expediency. The Democrat Party is selling fool’s gold to the people that eventually will be exposed for the complete charade that its government classism espouses. 

The Republican Party is filled with posers that talk about opposition but votes in lock step with big government. The only hope for Americans to insure their freedoms is to successfully revamp the GOP from the Grand Old Party to the new GOP or Guardian of the People party.

It will take many primary election cycles and there will unfortunately be lost battles along the way yet in any deeply held value struggle, when do you give up and surrender your principles?

The answer is simply, never.

                                                                                                      When will you as an American listen only to your President’s teleprompter? When will you turn off your radio? When will you only read only government approved media?

 Your answer should be simply, never.