Sunday, May 1, 2016

Conflicting philosophies-- Ted Cruz

Yesterday, I was at the Arizona State Republican Convention. The purpose was to choose delegates for either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.

[ The outcome was an apparent rigging of a vote, whereby we delegates were told that we had to vote on a computer. We did--and while about 80% of the State Delegates there were for Trump, Cruz was awarded all the Delegates]

While waiting to vote, another Delegate asked who I was voting for. I told him--Trump.

He said, "Well, Ted Cruz is a good man. He is a good Christian".

I replied, "There is a conflict" . He asked "what is that?"  My answer was, " He says he is a good Christian--but he is an attorney. I never knew an attorney that could be a good Christian".

I started thinking about that on the way home.
The arrest of Jesus is a pivotal event recorded in the canonical gospels. The event ultimately leads, in the Gospel accounts, to Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus was arrested by the Temple guards of the Sanhedrin in the Garden of Gethsemane, shortly after the Last Supper (during which Jesus gave his final sermon), and immediately after the kiss of Judas, which is traditionally said to have been an act of betrayal.
The arrest led immediately to his trial before the Sanhedrin, during which they condemned him to death. In Christian theology, the events from the Last Supper until the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are referred to as the Passion.
In the New Testament, all four Gospels conclude with an extended narrative of Jesus' arrest, trial, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection. In each Gospel, these five events in the life of Jesus are treated with more intense detail than any other portion of that Gospel's narrative. Scholars note that the reader receives an almost hour-by-hour account of what is happening.
The Sanhedrin ( synedrion, "sitting together," hence "assembly" or "council") was an assembly of twenty-three to seventy-one men appointed in every city in the Land of Israel
In the Hebrew Bible, Mosesand the Israelites were commanded by God to establish courts of judges who were given full authority over the people of Israel, who were commanded by God to obey every word the judges instructed and every law they established. Judges in ancient Israel were the religious leaders and Teachers of the nation of Israel. The Mishnah arrives at the number twenty-three based on an exegetical derivation: it must be possible for a "community" to vote for both conviction and exoneration. The minimum size of a "community" is 10 men (10 vs 10). One more is required to achieve a majority (11 vs 10), but a simple majority cannot convict,[6] and so an additional judge is required (12 vs 10). Finally, a court should not have an even number of judges to prevent deadlocks; thus 23 (12 vs 10 and 1). This court dealt with only religious matters.

To become a Judge, you have to learn the law-- a lawyer.
As every police officer in the United States knows, judges are attorneys in robes. 
It was attorneys that that put Jesus on the Cross--defeating the popularity of Jesus and his message. 

It is an attorney that is trying to defeat Donald Trump and his renewed message of values that built these United States 

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Why I would never vote for Ted Cruz

If you followed any of my writing you would know that I was a law enforcer for over thirty years, then a private Investigator. In both cases, I dealt with prosecutors and defense attorneys.

A big factor is his body language and way of speaking that tells me--He is saying: I am the smartest man in the world--Bow down and listen when I speak.

In addition, I attended Law School for two years. No one there ever knew that I was  a law enforcer, just that I was a California State employee.

What I learned from all that time, and encountering hundreds of attorneys was that there were four that I would trust and respect.

First, attorneys seemed to have the line between right and wrong erased by the time they practice for about six months.

Serving justice is not the goal--winning the case is. If destroying someone to do that is involved--So be it. 

In California, attorneys would go to an agency where an officer or deputy worked--that had arrested his/her client and demand to view that  law enforcer's personnel record. That worked until Los Angeles County Sheriff Peter Pitchess challenged it. After the Court's decision an attorney had to be able to point to a specific incident to view that record.

Attorneys rationalize their corrupt tactics be declaring that all their efforts are to give their client the most vigorous representation possible.

This is evident about Cruz as he ignores results of elections and goes about gathering delegates by hook or by crook.

An early indicator of what he was about was the false statement he put out about Dr Ben Carson prior to the Iowa caucuses.

Personally, I think that attorneys are mainly actors. They put on a show of defying each other in court--then go for cocktails after, and pat each other on the back.

A trial is an effort by one attorney to put on a show to the uninformed jury while blocking his/her opposing attorney's show.  I say uninformed because I was the prosecutor's witness, and sat through jury selection. If you are a law enforcer, another attorney, a first responder, doctor, or nurse, you will NOT be selected. The ideal is a retired sociology teacher 

Sunday, March 20, 2016


These quotes are by the CIA, FBI and Secret Service.
Her actual words:
(1) "Where is the God damn flag? I want the God damn fucking flag up every morning at fucking sunrise". Hillary to staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day 1991. From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 244
(2) “Fuck off! It's enough I have to see you shit-kickers every day! I'm not going to talk to you, too! Just do your Goddamn job and keep your mouth shut." Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good Morning." From the book "America Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p.90
(3) "If you want to remain on this detail, get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags!" Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident. From the book "The First Partner" p. 259
(4) "Stay the fuck back, stay the fuck back away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just fucking do as I say, Okay!!?" Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail. From the book "Unlimited Access" by Clinton ’s FBI Agent-in-Charge, Gary Aldridge, p.139
(5) "Where's the miserable cock sucker?" (otherwise known as “Bill Clinton”) Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer. From the book "The Truth about Hillary" by Edward Klein, p. 5
(6) "You fucking idiot" Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event. From the book "Crossfire" ~pg. 84
(7) "Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those fucking sunglasses! We need to go back! Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One. From the book " Dereliction of Duty" p. 71-72
(8) "Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can't fuck her here!!" Hillary to Gov. Bill Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female. From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 243
There it is, chapter and page.......the real Hillary!
Additionally, when she walked around the White House, NO ONE was permitted to look her in the eye, they all had to lower their heads with their eyes towards the ground whenever she walked by. Clearly she is a class act—NOT!
This ill-tempered, violent, loud-mouth, hateful and abusive woman wants to be your next President, and have total control as Commander in Chief of our Military, the very Military for which she has shown incredible disdain throughout her public life .
Remember her most vile comment about Benghazi: “what difference at this point does it make?”
Now it will be clear why the crew of "Marine One" helicopter nick-named the craft, "Broomstick ONE"!

Thursday, February 18, 2016


FEB 19, 1977 

   I go to work, with a start time of 1300 hours. One other officer and I work the "Overlap" shift out of the Oceanside California Highway Patrol Office.  We get our uniforms on and are ready to be driving out at 1300, where the Officers of the regular shifts [ 1400, 2200, and 0600] have Briefing( Sgt hands out papers to you, tells you what is going on) -- and are driving out at 45 minutes later. 
   As I am getting my uniform on, a Sergeant walks up to me and says, "Dave, you are going to be the Afternoon Officer-in-Charge today --we  are having a Staff Meeting" MEANS-- All the Sergeants, the two two Lieutenants , and the Captain are in a meeting. Everything that happens today is your responsibility. 
    I drive out in my 1996 Chev Caprice Patrol car, it is raining.  As I get on I-5 south, there is a high speed motorcycle (MC) using the fast two lanes. I give chase ( Not advised in rain) . The MCs' speed is 90 mph. 
    The MC 's rider stops in the center divider. It is  man. He is asked for a driver's license. Ne bluntly says,"It is suspended". 
    AS I am writing the citation, Dispatch advises there is a pursuit coming south from San Juan Capistrano (Oh, Joy...anything that goes is YOUR fault) 
    Since MC rider has no license, I have to impound the MC. I call a tow, write a storage form, tow truck comes, and takes rider and MC off I-5. 
    Now, Dispatch advises that the pursuit coming south went off in San Clemente -- BUT-- there is another one coming south on I-15 from Temecula. I start to go to my assigned Beat Area south of me on I-5. I do not get but about four miles, and Dispatch advises that pursuit is now coming west on State Route 78. 
    I turn back to north. Following the radio traffic, I intend to try to block the pursued car as it comes to the west end of Highway 78 over
 I-5. What occurs then is from a news video, taken from a news helicopter.

At the crash, we (There were two officers from the chase and a third that arrived after. Meanwhile, it had stopped raining, and I took off my yellow rain slicker. I would find out later that the Media was looking all over for the officer in a rain coat to get a statement. 

We find that the ONLY one seriously hurt is the man that we had been pursuing. He was not seat belted, and had been propelled onto the rear window ledge. We would find out later that he had not been drinking at all, but was a mental case.  He lived in Palm Desert, California. His wife had died 4 days before. He had gone out the next day and bought this car he was driving. On this this day, he had gone into a bank in Palm Desert. The staff felt that he was acting suspiciously and called Riverside County Sheriff. When the Deputy walked in, our suspect ran to his new car and fled, with the deputy pursuing. 

The man from the white Jeep was walking and talking, but swore he had been going south. 
The man from the pickup was not hurt. 
The young lady from the maroon car was on the phone and did not get out. She was not hurt. 

Our Public Affairs Officer, Rick Sablan,  ran up to me after coming to the site, and said,"Don't say nothing to the news, Dave--They have you on film". 

Later--all the Sergeants, the Lieutenants and the Captain came to the scene. We were about an hour into the investigation, and one Lieutenant came to me and said, " Go Home Dave--We will see you tomorrow." 

For four days, the Media camped in front of the office, hoping to interview me.  A lieutenant apprehended one perusing out "Picture Board" , trying to see what I looked like, and had him removed from the building. 

The ONLY one who supported me was the Border Division Public Affairs Officer, Phil Konstantine. He stated that "I know Officer Hollenbeck, and I now he follows policy and took appropriate action". 
EVERYONE else had an "I'd Uh"  
One Sergeant declared, "When I saw him coming, I'd uh rammed him from the side". (PROBLEM-Center barrier ends there and he would have been pushed into opposing traffic--then its MY fault)

Another officer said, " I'd uh broke his window and pulled him out". ( PROBLEM--He weighed 240 pounds. Years before, I had tried to pull out a 120 pound man on I-5 in San Diego. He gripped the steering when, hit the gas and dragged me a hundred yards) 

The wife of the man in the White Jeep tried to sue. It got to the first hearing. After both parties had testified, the judge asked the plaintiff's attorney, "What can you show me that the officer DID to cause this crash?"  The attorney could not point  to anything. The judge dismissed it 

About three weeks after the crash, PAO Rick Sablan caught me at my patrol car just before I went out on the road. He says, "The Media is still asking for something from you about that pursuit and crash."

I told him," Well, the Oceanside Police has not been here to interrogate me and neither has the San Diego Sheriff o District Attorney, or the FBI ( Civil Rights violation) . The Department ( CHP) has not even talked to me about it. So, I guess I did everything right". 

Tuesday, October 20, 2015


The Bush Family is closed connected to MEXICO. 
GHW BUsh had oil holdings in Mexico.
Jeb's wife  was born in Mexico, was an Illegal Alien in California.She is now affiliated with La Raza.

GW Bush proved several times during his tenure that he did not want to aggressively enforce immigration laws. Any time a Democrat protested a mode of enforcement, he halted that mode 

IF G W Bush had really wanted to enforce immigration, he would have found that the TWENTY hijackers that effected the 9-11 attacks had ALL overstayed VISAs and were here then ILLEGALLY .

AGAIN, TRUMP has brought out something that was embarrassing to the Powers-That-BE, but was known by several in this country. 
It was a practice that was not accepted by any person that obeyed the law.

READ ON DOWN. You will see what I mean


By IAN HANCHETT19 Oct 2015313
MSNBC’s “Hardball” host Chris Matthews praised Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump former Florida Governor Jeb Bush for bringing up George W. Bush in relation to 9/11 and Trump “awakened us all to the fact that Jeb said something that just isn’t true. His brother did not keep us safe” on Monday.
Matthews said, “What strikes me about the campaign so far is that it took a political newcomer, Donald Trump, to say something we already knew, but nobody had said before, that President George W. Bush did not keep us safe in the eight years he was president of the united states. he didn’t keep us safe, or the people on those planes — those four planes safe that day. he didn’t keep safe — those men and women forced to choose between jumping from 100-story roof and being killed by the smoke and fire. And he didn’t keep safe the hundreds of firefighters killed that day doing their courageous duty.

 So, why did his brother make such a claim? Why did Jeb tell the audience in a republican debate last week, and to great and expected applause his brother ‘kept us safe.’ He said because he knew he could get — not only get away from it, but could trigger a wild cheer for it, because he knew the country had been told to not look at what steps were taken and not taken in the hours, days, weeks, months before September 11th, 2001. We’ve been told not to look at the casualties we’ve taken in Iraq, a war that had nothing to do with 9/11, except that, our president and his strong-minded advisors had used 9/11 to justify war they wanted for their own reasons. 
Well, the partisans of President George W. Bush say we can’t say this, any of it. His brother Jeb says that only those in the country’s margins even think this. Really?”
He continued, “But the Bushes and their partisans can charge Hillary Clinton for what happened in a remote building in war-torn north Africa, miles, 400 miles, from the capital of that country. 
Let’s put those two events together for just a moment, mentally. One [on] 9/11/2001, the other, on the same date in 2012, New York City, the United States’ financial center is hit by two jetliners. The center of our military command and control, located in Washington, DC is hit by another. Still, a fourth plane is downed by courageous passengers on a course to the capitol. 
All after warning was given to the president that, quote, ‘Bin Laden determined to attack in the US.’ We were hit here in our country, the homeland as the ideologues have gotten us to call it now by a concerted, highly coordinated attack, using airliners, and our training, and no one is to blame. But when an outpost 400 miles from the capital city, in a north African country, with nothing approaching a normal security situation, while then, Hillary Clinton, back in the United States is painted as the villain, as if it was she, who left the window open that night.”
Matthews then stated, “Again, I want to thank Trump and Jeb of course, for finally getting this one out in the open, by throwing out the red meat, by saying, he ‘kept us safe.” Jeb let us know what we knew already, that actually, W didn’t keep us safe, did he?”
He also argued, “I am not a big fan of Donald Trump on many occasions, on many fronts, but he woke — I think he woke open this campaign. He awakened us all to the fact that Jeb said something that just isn’t true. His brother did not keep us safe.”
Matthews also stated, later in the segment, “the Democrats never had the stones to go out and challenge George W. and say, ‘Look buddy, don’t talk about what a warrior king you are. you left the door open.’ Because they probably felt that would be un-nice. Trump isn’t un-nice. He’s willing to be tough, especially when the guy running against him has really, the stupidity to say, my brother ‘kept us safe’ in face of 9/11.”
Later, in his closing, Matthews said that if Hillary Clinton is to blame for Benghazi, George W. Bush is to blame for 9/11.
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett


From 1998 to 2001, the Army Intelligence and Special Operations Command (AISOC) conducted a highly classified intelligence-gathering endeavor known as Able Danger. Its mission was to investigate the terrorist threat posed by al Qaeda, both inside the United States and abroad. By 1999, Able Danger had identified, by name, four of the future 9/11 hijackers -- including the ringleader, Mohammed Atta – as members of an al Qaeda cell based in Brooklyn, New York. But the AISOC never informed the FBI about the activities of these suspects, thus leaving them free to continue plotting and preparing for the 9/11 attacks with impunity.

On August 15, 2005, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, the first member of Able Danger to speak publicly about his role in the operation, told the press about Able Danger’s findings and detailed the policies that had caused the crucial intelligence to go unheeded. Shaffer explained that when Able Danger had tried to arrange a series of meetings in 2000 with the Washington field office of the FBI to share its information about Atta, military lawyers intervened and canceled the meetings, citing fear of controversy “if Able Danger was portrayed as a military operation that had violated the privacy of civilians who were legally in the United States." At the root of this fear was a clearly defined prohibition against inter-agency intelligence-sharing in terror investigations. This prohibition, commonly referred to as the “wall” blocking such communications, dated back to the Carter administration's 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was enacted to defuse allegations of FBI espionage abuses.

In 1995, while America’s intelligence agencies were still investigating al Qaeda's 1993 terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, the Clinton administration strengthened FISA to a degree that was unprecedented. Specifically, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick called for increased restrictions on information-sharing between intelligence (CIA) and law-enforcement (FBI) agencies. In a 1995 memo to then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, titled “Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations,” Gorelick wrote the following:รข€¨

“We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.”
It should be noted that when Gorelick penned the aforementioned memo, President Clinton was extremely worried about ongoing FBI and CIA investigations into illegal Chinese contributions that had been made to his presidential campaign. Both the FBI and the CIA were churning up evidence damaging to the Democratic Party, its fundraisers, the Chinese, and ultimately the Clinton administration itself. It was also a period when the FBI had begun to systematically investigate weapons-technology theft by foreign powers, most notably Russia and China. Had FBI agents been able to confirm China's theft of such technology -- or its transfer of that technology to nations like Pakistan, Iran and Syria -- Clinton would have been forced by law and international treaty to react (and to thereby jeopardize the future flow of Chinese money into his political coffers).

Gorelick's 1995 memo emphasized Presidential Decision Directive 24 (PDD 24), which Clinton had signed the previous year. PDD 24 placed intelligence-gathering under the direct control of the President’s National Security Council, and ultimately the White House, through a four-level, top-down chain of command set up to stifle information-sharing and cooperation between intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. From the moment the directive was implemented, suchinformation-sharing became a bureaucratic nightmare over which the President himself had final authority. Consequently, information lethal to Clinton and the Democratic Party languished inside the Justice Department, trapped behind PDD 24 and Gorelick’s “wall.”

The implications of this policy were enormous. Mary Jo White, a New York attorney and an experienced al Qaeda prosecutor, vehemently objected to the barrier Gorelick had erected between agencies. In a letter to Gorelick and Attorney General Janet Reno, White noted: “The most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating.” White also wrote a second letter in which she warned that Gorelick's policy “could cost lives.”

Testifying before the 9/11 Commission in April of 2004, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft made his own observations about how the “wall” had greatly hindered terrorism investigations:

“In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall. When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists. At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, 'Whatever has happened to this – someday someone will die – and wall or not – the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems.'’’ 
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate set about to craft legislation that would provide the government with new tools for combating terrorist threats facing America. As a result of these efforts, on October 26, 2001 the USA Patriot Act was passed, finally authorizing criminal investigators and intelligence agencies to cooperate on international terrorism cases.

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Media thumps Trump, but polls show he's winning big

There are some who wonder--What is the fascination about Donald Trump? Why is Trump at the top of the Polls? 

An explanation from my perception:
Actually, there are several aspects. 
ITEM: The Ordinary Person out here in fly-over country ( I shall refer to us as OrPer) is expected to adamantly adhere to all laws and Rules. 
Yet, we see the High and Mighty serially break laws and punish those who ask that all obey them. 
  Meanwhile, the Republicans who ran in 2010 and 2012, who strenuously emphasized that they would correct the deviances, have --except for a few-- ignored the violations of the High and Mighty. 

ITEM: For over 40 years now, we have seen a Politically Correct society de-emphasize masculinity and  competition ( Because, in competition, there are winners and losers) Games that provided exercise for young people went away--Because...Someone could get hurt. 
  Forceful personalities were discouraged and penalties for such behavior came about.  To put it in Street Language--Men were  forced to become pussies. 

ITEM: A combination of foreign tyrants and Liberal/Progressive/Communist/Socialist leaders were immune to this quest for blandness and non-aggression. 
They bullied and browbeat anyone who opposed their agendas. 

Meanwhile, our "Elected Officials in DC" did not oppose any of these. 
The High and Mighty gave away Iraq and subtly encouraged the rise of ISIS. 

ITEM: Soldiers sent to locales where Islamic Terrorism thrived were threatened with long term prison sentences for killing anyone that any reasonable person who be convinced that the person in their sight was conducting terrorist activity. 

Meanwhile, recruiters would be gunned down IN THE UNITED STATES by persons that that High and Mighty had done an unsatisfactory background check on.  

To the Orper, the person who went contrary to the dumbing down and pacification of the Orper becomes their Hero. 

The Orper--as opposed to the High and Mighty --does his/her homework. They want visible results and proof of  accomplishment...As opposed to glowing oratory and promises. 

Additionally, a big campaign killer would be declarations by family members and/or employees (Especially of Trump's organization, as large as it is)  that he is mean, a bully, cheap, or unjust.  
All of his family is part of this campaign Staff
I have not seen ANY negative comments from either a present or past employee 

Secondly, especially after the 2012 Presidential Campaign, the Orper found that THE MEDIA does not report facts. They are a cheering section for the High and Mighty, and conceal their mistakes while promoting  Political Correctness, Pussification, and intimidation of malcontents. 



Rumors of Donald Trump’s demise may have been greatly exaggerated. 
Ever since rival Carly Fiorina was widely perceived to have bested Trump at the second GOP debate in California on Sept. 16, media outlets have been lining up to suggest that the front-runner is waning.  
Trump has hit back with characteristic vigor. But he has a point, independent observers say. 
“The reality is that he does have a hold on some people and he doesn’t appear to be surrendering it,” said Mark Mellman, a veteran Democratic pollster who is also a columnist for The Hill. 
Much of the negative media attention has been built around a single poll in the immediate aftermath of the debate, by CNN/ORC. 
The survey showed the businessman’s support among Republican voters nationwide had declined by 8 percentage points since the last survey from the same source, less than two weeks before. 
That was a sizable decline, to be sure — even though Trump still led his closest rival by 9 percentage points. But no other reputable poll since the debate has shown Trump falling by anything like that margin.
A survey from Fox News released earlier this week showed the businessman at 26 percent support nationally, an increase of 1 point since Fox’s last survey in mid-August. A Bloomberg poll gave him 21 percent — good enough for a 5-point lead over the field and an unchanged rating since the last poll from the financial news outlet at the beginning of August.  
The picture is not substantially different in the crucial early states — and, in some cases, it is even better for Trump. 
The Democratic-leaning firm Public Policy Polling (PPP) released a new survey from Iowa this week in which Trump polled at 24 percent — a 5-point rise over his showing in PPP’s previous poll of the Hawkeye State in the immediate aftermath of the first GOP debate on Aug. 6. 
Trump’s support could collapse eventually — as is the case with any other candidate — but there is precious little evidence that his supporters are deserting him.
“The national polling that has come out this week has been mixed,” said PPP director Tom Jensen. “But it’s not something where I would buy into a narrative of Trump declining, unless that was the narrative I wanted. I think, in some quarters, the media people are getting bored [with Trump’s strength] and are ready to write a different story.”
The candidate shares that view quite emphatically. In TV interviews and on his Twitter account throughout this week, he has inveighed against media coverage that he believes is unfair in general and, in particular, is highlighting the most negative polls for him and ignoring the rest. 

Dishonest @politico just called to say that none of the polls including Fox, NBC, CNN, Zogby, & Morning Consult matter. Serious haters.

 Four days earlier, he had a tense exchange with Savannah Guthrie, one of the anchors of NBC’s “Today” show. Trump complained that Guthrie was highlighting the CNN poll that showed the big decline  rather than NBC’s own online survey in which he had risen 7 points from the previous month.
“You put up the CNN poll, you didn’t put up NBC poll and you’re the ones that are paying for the NBC poll,” he told Guthrie. “So I don’t get it, other than that the NBC poll is a very good poll for Trump.” 
Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, underlined the point in a phone interview with The Hill. 
Complaining about “dishonesty in the mainstream media,” Lewandowski noted that, while the results of any individual poll are open to debate, “there has been a clear consistency that indicates Mr. Trump is the definitive front-runner for the Republican nomination.” 
As of late Friday, the RealClearPolitics (RCP) average had Trump leading the GOP field by 7.7 points nationally; by exactly 6 points in Iowa; by 15.6 points in New Hampshire, and by 15.3 points in South Carolina. 
“If his name wasn’t Trump, the pundits would be saying this race is over,” Lewandowski said. “If the name was Bush — and Jeb is in about sixth place, by the way — and he was getting 28 and 32 percent, it would be all over.” 
(Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is in fourth place in the RCP national average, though he was sixth in the most recent major national survey, from Fox News.) 
Whether the negative media attention truly harms Trump is a complicated question, however. 
“The problem with the media is that the voters who support Trump hold the media in contempt. So for the media to try to pound The Donald just reinforces the idea that Trump is correct, and is the hero for a lot of people who are dissatisfied,” said Tobe Berkovitz, a Boston University professor who specializes in political communications.  
Berkovitz and other independent observers are careful to note that they are not predicting that Trump will triumph in the battle for the GOP nomination.  
Berkovitz suggested that serious investigations into Trump’s business dealings could throw up damaging information. 
Jensen of PPP suggested that “eventually voters are going to get tired of his act.” Mellman, the Democratic pollster, noted that “the fact that he has some staying power doesn’t mean the staying power is permanent.” 
Still, the virtually-unanimous view is that, regardless of the latest headlines, the Trump phenomenon is not over, by a long shot. 
“You can think of all kinds of reasons why Trump might not get the nomination,” said Stephen Craig, a University of Florida political science professor and an expert on public opinion. “But the poll results we are seeing now? Those shifts aren’t enough to hang anything on.”

Thursday, August 20, 2015

My perception of Megyn Kelly's ambush of Trump at the "Debate".

As I watched later clips of this "Debate" actually, you could tell as time went on WHO FOX NEWS had chosen to be candidates--and who they wanted eliminated.

Angelo Codevilla below cites the old question attorneys in the 70's and 80's would aim at officers and persons not sympathetic with their client:
 “when did you stop beating your wife?” 

One, there is no good way to answer this.

Two, this told you the attorney had NO facts or evidence indicating his/her client's 
innocence. All the facts showed the Client was guilty, but then, attorneys had this motto: If you can't faze them with facts, baffle them with bullshit

Three, it was intended to anger the witness, have an angry response, thereby reducing or eliminating the witnesses credibility. 

Police Officers became accustomed to accusatory questions like this.

The 90's brought us the expanded use of the Internet. Now, there are whole online services that cater to law firms to  do complete search on witnesses. If there is any conflict, indiscretion, obvious character flaw--they will find it. 
FOX had done this on Trump. 
So, they took minute particles from the episodes of the Apprentice, implied that he had done things in real life and posed it as a combined accusation-question. 

we should return to the debate formats of Lincoln's day.

Angelo Codevilla
By Angelo Codevilla
AUGUST 13, 2015

Since presidential debates started in 1960, the journalists who are supposed to “moderate” them have increasingly set the agenda and determined the substance of what the public sees. In the first 2016 presidential debate, Fox News’ “moderators” focused on what might embarrass candidates rather than on their record or proposals. Also, they indulged the Republican Establishment’s animus against its least favorite candidate. Though this made for an exciting show, the biggest loser was the public’s interest in understanding candidates and issues. The public interest would be best served were candidates to question one another. That’s how it was done in Lincoln’s day. We could and should get back to that.
Choosing the president of the United states on the basis of short answers to questions formulated or chosen by journalists was always a bad idea. It has only gotten worse. Limited to two minutes, as in the League Of Women Voters debates (Fox’s limit was one minute answers and 30 second rebuttals) the candidates can only reprise their canned talking points or the cleverish ads that are the foul staples of modern campaigns. Such parodies of debates demean the candidates, and all of us who watch. Along with the candidates, we the people become pawns in a game between the political consultants, the “moderators,” and the commentators who then tell us who played best.

Because no one ever doubted that “moderators” would influence the outcome of presidential debates, much effort went into giving the impression that the persons chosen were such as whom all would consider objective and super partes. Trust in the media’s impartiality, however, had vanished long before “moderator” Candy Crowley helped Barack Obama sustain a lie in 2012’s second presidential debate by instantly and counterfactually “fact checking” Mitt Romney. How, not whether, Mainstream Media “moderators” push the agendas of the Democratic Establishment they represented is the only question. Indeed, by 2012 it was difficult to avoid the sense that the media, Fox News included, was focusing negative coverage on the most conservative candidate who happened to be leading in the polls at any given time.
A public official’s oath, after all, is to “the Constitution of the United States,” not to party bosses.
So, as Megyn Kelly’s team prepared for the first debate of the 2016 cycle, and as trumping Donald Trump’s challenge to the Republican Establishment became that Establishment’s overriding concern, it was clear that Fox’s “moderators” would be the most intrusive ever, and that their push of their employers’ agenda and their “take down” of their least favorite candidate would be explicit. In both regards, the Fox team broke new ground and established precedents that should lead us to scrap the post 1960 format.
The team began by demanding that whoever might not support the Republican Party’s eventual nominee raise his hand. Who, one wonders, empowered these “moderators” to demand an oath of loyalty to the Party hierarchy? 
A public official’s oath, after all, is to “the Constitution of the United States,” not to party bosses. 
Then came questions to the candidates that were one version another of “when did you stop beating your wife?” 
Donald Trump, first target for elimination, was baited particularly. Next time, it will be someone else’s turn. The time after that, yet PAGE 1 another’s. Fox News’ treatment of presidential candidates has less to do with public policy than with the extent to which they match the Republican Establishment. 
This differs from the rest of the media’s treatment of politics only to the diminishing extent to which the Democratic and Republican Establishments differ.

Why ‘The Establishment’ Doesn’t Matter Anymore

Meanwhile, as the American people have become increasingly estranged from both Establishments, they look for someone, anyone, who takes seriously their concern with issues that these Establishments, jointly, have taken out of political play. These issues are big, heavy, and not articulable in sound bites.
The Fox News debate showed the depths to which our political discourse has sunk.

About immigration laws, many of which are not even enforced, that are changing this country’s way of life? 
What shall we do about a financial system that manufactures literally trillions dollars and channels them through banks and other institutions in ways that benefit a few while putting us all at risk? 
Is it a good idea to redefine marriage? That seems to have happened. Shouldn’t we have a say in that?
Did any of us vote to treat unborn babies as humans for the purposive harvesting their hearts and livers but not human for the purpose of letting them be killed in the first place?
 Why and how have such questions been taken out of our hands as citizens? Is it not our right and duty to take them back? Such questions demand consideration in depth ­ jointly by candidates and by citizens.
The Fox News debate showed the depths to which our political discourse has sunk and that its epitome, the presidential debates ­sound bites orchestrated by inevitably biased “moderators”­ is irremediable.
Any candidate possessed of enough testosterone could distinguish himself by withdrawing from any further such shows and declaring his intention of challenging opponents to Lincoln-­Douglas style debates for the broadcast of which he would raise the cash. Might enough citizens support restoring American politics to the intellectual and moral level of 150 years ago?
Angelo M. Codevilla is a fellow of the Claremont Institute, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University and the author of To Make And Keep Peace, Hoover Institution Press, 2014.