John McCain served our country in the United States Navy from 1958 to 1981.  He achieved the rank of Captain, and was awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit, a Purple Heart and the Distinguished Flying Cross.

Captain John McCain is most well-known for surviving over five years as a prisoner of war, during the Vietnam War, after being shot down and captured by North Vietnamese forces.  He was finally released in 1973.

We thank you for your service to our country John McCain.

That WAS John McCain.

Now fast forward to May 17, 2018, forty-five years later.

There will be a reception on Capitol Hill today to honor the service of Senator John McCain. Senators Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham and Amy Klobuchar will host the reception. A motley crew to be sure.

On a side note, this is the first that I am even aware we have a Senator Amy Klobuchar as well. I feel it takes some real effort to remain unknown as a U.S. Senator when there are only 100 of them floating around. She is from the state of Minnesota, and she has been a senator since 2007! Eleven years! And I’ve never heard of her! Have you? After some investigation, and input from some anonymous Senate sources, she has only been known to say, “Yes, Mr. Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Schumer. How do you want me to vote, Mr. Schumer?” Ok. Well this is for another article, another day.

Now back to John McCain.

A collection of “swamp monsters” are throwing a reception on Capitol Hill today to honor the service of Senator John McCain. He deserves to be honored for his military service to our country, but that will be clouded by his ensuing service to “the swamp.”

If you look at Senator McCain’s history, all of his meaningful accomplishments happened prior to 1981.

Since going into politics in 1983, Senator McCain really hasn’t done much of anything. In fact, his biggest claim to fame was probably back in 1989-199, when he was investigated as being one of five senators, called the Keating Five, who interfered with regulators on behalf of Charles Keating, a financier accused of financial violations and convicted of securities fraud.

McCain was cleared, but the Senate Ethics Committee (“Senate ethics” is a term that can be defined as “mutually exclusive! The definition of “mutually exclusive” is: Of or relating to a situation involving two or more events, possibilities, etc., in which the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other.) decided that McCain showed poor judgment in his efforts for Keating, who was a large contributor to McCain’s campaign. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? “Swampers” always end up with a slap on the hand. They “show poor judgement” as opposed to breaking the law.

People attending this ceremony will be treated to a special screening of HBO’s new documentary, “John McCain: For Whom the Bell Tolls.”

That’s a pretty dramatic title. I’m assuming it’s a reference to the poem by John Donne.

For Whom the Bell Tolls

No man is an island,

Entire of itself.

Each is a piece of the continent,

A part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by the sea,

Europe is the less.

As well as if a promontory were.

As well as if a manor of thine own

Or of thine friend’s were.

Each man’s death diminishes me,

For I am involved in mankind.

Therefore, send not to know

For whom the bell tolls,

It tolls for thee.

 

Well, you can take that for whatever it’s worth.

Thanks John McCain for getting off to a pretty good start with your life, but then sadly being sucked into “the swamp,” and succumbing to the political machine.

In the end, you turned your back on the Veteran’s Administration, sat on your hands, has a weak presidential run, and filled the Senate chamber with hot air.  You’re a good poster child for term limits.

 

 

 

According to various media outlets who have obtained advance copies of McCain’s new book, “The Restless Wave,” due out May 22, John McCain, the RINO (Republican In Name Only) Senator from Arizona, wrote, “I agreed to receive a copy of what is now referred to as ‘the dossier,’” referencing information compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. “I reviewed its contents. The allegations were disturbing, but I had no idea which if any were true. I could not independently verify any of it, and so I did what any American who cares about our nation’s security should have done.”

McCain writes that in November 2016, he spoke with Sir Andrew Wood, a former British diplomat, at the Halifax International Security Forum. Wood alerted him to Steele’s work after which, David Kramer, senior director for Human Rights and Human Freedoms at the McCain Institute, traveled to London to meet with Steele. Prior to this, as The Washington Post reported, Steele had already met with American officials in Rome to discuss his findings. The Arizona Republican had previously issued a statement in January of 2017 about passing over “sensitive information” to Comey.

McCain recounts how he put the dossier in a safe in his office and called Comey’s office to request a meeting: “I went to see him at his earliest convenience, handed him the dossier, and explained how it had come into my possession. I said I didn’t know what to make of it, and I trusted the FBI would examine it carefully and investigate its claims. With that, I thanked the director and left. The entire meeting had probably not lasted longer than ten minutes. I did what duty demanded I do,” McCain concludes.

Ha! Okay. We definitely need some translation here from “swampy” English into normal English. Let’s proceed:

When McCain says, “I agreed to receive a copy of what is now referred to as ‘the dossier,’” who exactly did he make an agreement with?

When McCain says, “I reviewed its (the dossier’s) contents. The allegations were disturbing, but I had no idea which if any were true. I could not independently verify any of it, and so I did what any American who cares about our nation’s security should have done,” he obviously does not represent “any American who cares about our nation’s security.” In this case he represents all of the pathetic Trump headhunters out there in “the swamp,” who were grasping at any negative straw they could find, the truth be damned.    

When McCain writes, that in November 2016, he spoke with Sir Andrew Wood, a former British diplomat, at the Halifax International Security Forum. Wood alerted him to Steele’s work after which, David Kramer, senior director for Human Rights and Human Freedoms at the McCain Institute, traveled to London to meet with Steele, my first inclination is to believe that McCain was set-up and chosen due to his rift with Donald Trump and his probable inclination to believe whatever was in the fictional dossier. My second thought was how desperate was McCain to trash Donald Trump, that he would go out of his way to send a senior director from his institute to meet with the author of this ill-conceived and ill-promoted collection of lies, and apparently get his own copy.   

Prior to this, as The Washington Post reported, Steele had already met with American officials in Rome to discuss his findings. The Arizona Republican had previously issued a statement in January of 2017 about passing over “sensitive information” to Comey. By this time, we know that Hillary Clinton and the DNC were the ones who bought and paid for the dossier, and probably the ones feeding these fabricated stories to Steele to put in the dossier in the first place! Oh what a tangled web they weave!    

When McCain recounts how he put the dossier in a safe in his office and called Comey’s office to request a meeting, “I went to see him at his earliest convenience, handed him the dossier, and explained how it had come into my possession. I said I didn’t know what to make of it, and I trusted the FBI would examine it carefully and investigate its claims. I did what duty demanded I do,” McCain means that he couldn’t wait to see if any of the stuff in the dossier would stick to Trump, and he was now washing his hands of it, knowing he had served himself and “the swamp” well.    

So we’ve had Hillary come out with her book, Donna Brazile came out with her book, James Comey came out with his book, and now John McCain with his. Who’s next?  Stay tuned for future translation!

Thanks to Gideon Resnick and Aaron Bernstein of Reuters for supplying information for portions of this article.

 

Let’s analyze a typical, biased mainstream media, article that talks about “Big Pharma,” drugs prices, and the politics the surrounds them.

According to Kimberly Leonard, a staff writer at U.S. News and World Report:

Lowering drug prices is much more complicated than candidates make it sound.

(Oh, of course it is.)

Republican front-runner Donald Trump surprised many when he endorsed a proposal that has been on President Barack Obama’s wish list for years: allowing government-run Medicare to set drug prices to reduce the growth in healthcare costs.

(Ahhh yes, Barack Obama’s “wish list.” That’s the list that sounds good to everybody, and is full of good ideas, but will never happen because it conflicts with Obama’s big campaign contributors. The fact that Donald Trump endorsed it means it may actually have a chance of happening.)

“When it comes time to negotiate the cost of drugs, we are going to negotiate like crazy,” Trump said at a campaign event while in New Hampshire.

This straightforward-sounding proposal has also been endorsed by Democrat candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

(Ahhh yes, it’s been endorsed by the Democrat candidates. This again sounds good to everybody, and is a good idea, but will never happen if the Democrat candidates are put in the position to actually do something, just like Barack Obama. The fact that Donald Trump is saying this, again, means it may actually have a chance of happening.)

A Kaiser Family Foundation poll shows that 93 percent of Democrats and 74 percent of Republicans support the idea. (Yes, they support “the idea,” but they don’t actually support doing it!) But like a lot of promises candidates make during campaigns, this one will be difficult to keep. (You can say that again! For one, it would require an act of Congress (No…it would really be more like an act of GOD!) The pharmaceutical industry, which has a strong lobbying presence, opposes the idea of government-set prices. (Reeeeeally? No kidding.)

Because the U.S. doesn’t have a single-payer system it can’t be compared with governments in other countries that cover all citizens and negotiate drug prices. The American health care system is a patchwork of private and public entities; heavily regulated yet subject to market pricing.

(Yes…, the American health care system is a pathetic “patchwork” of private and public entities which are “heavily regulated.” But…, America is also the place people from around the world flock when they really need some health issue taken care of quickly and properly and with cutting edge technology.)

Candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders say that, “Without changes to other parts of the system, allowing the federal government to negotiate prices may not result in significant savings, studies show.” (What study would show that negotiating lower drug prices would not lower the cost of drugs? And what is meant by significant savings? Isn’t saving anything better than saving nothing? I guess not if you’re a rich politician or a rich drug manufacturer!) But they and other politicians support investing in targeted medical research, like finding cures for cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. (Of course…, who isn’t for finding a cure for cancer or Alzheimer’s disease?)

The drug industry says the pressure on prices conflicts with realizing these goals of a cure for cancer and Alzheimer’s. “We want to be part of that, we want to continue finding cures and treatments faster,” they say. “But we can’t have policies and regulatory barriers that actually prevent us from doing that.”

(This is Big Pharma’s excuse when the suggestion of any kind of limitation on them is mentioned. It’s basically psychological blackmail for our health.)

What happened under the Obama administration illustrates some of the difficulties the next president would face. Obama vowed to let Medicare negotiate cheaper drug prices when he was running for the Oval Office in 2008. After being sworn in, however, he allowed pharmaceutical companies a seat at the table to finalize the details of his health care reform bill, ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act.

(Hmmm, who would have ever expected that?!)

(So, President Obama paid back his campaign debts by allowing “pharmaceutical companies a seat at the table” to finalize the details of his health care reform bill. This “seat” would turn out to be the seat at the head of the table! “What happened under the Obama administration illustrates some of the difficulties the next president would face.” That’s only true if Hillary had won. If Hillary had won it would have been a seamless transition, ObamaCare would be in “full speed ahead” mode, and the charade of their concern would have just proceeded as we have become accustomed to.)

(Since Donald trump won, he is facing his own set of challenges that only someone, who isn’t beholden to Big Pharma, and someone who actually wants to help “We the People” would face.)

U.S. News and World Report is just another member of the biased mainstream media, and hence “the swamp.” You can see how they try and lump President Trump in with the other “swamp dwellars.” You can see how they try and legitimize the “swampy” forces out there, while manipulating their readers with misinformation.

Stay thirsty my friends, but don’t drink the “swampy” Kool-aid!  It stinks!

First of all, who is is “Big Pharma?”  “Big Pharma” consists of quite a few large drug companies that include: Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Merck & Co., Abbott Labs, Eli Lily & Co., Amgen, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, just to name a few.

These drug companies devote themselves to inventing “non-natural molecules” for use in medicine. Why non-natural?  Because molecules previously occurring in nature cannot, as a rule, be patented.  It is essential to develop a “patentable” medicine. (Hmmm, so those visions of a scientist finding a cure for cancer in the rain forest are really only romantic hopes and dreams? I’m afraid so.) Only a medicine protected by a government patent can hope to recoup the enormous cost of taking a new drug through the government’s approval process. (As usual…, it’s all about the money.)

Getting a new drug through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is very expensive ($1 billion on average).  All these financial ties encourage a “wink and a nod” relationship between researchers working for drug companies and regulators, who are often the same people.

So actually, drug companies are not really private companies competing in an open market.  They are government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac and the big Wall Street banks and firms.  It should not be surprising, therefore, that drug companies spend millions on political lobbying and campaign contributions. Many politicians rely on these campaign contributions and thus have a vested interest in maintaining the drug cartel, even though needlessly high drug costs contribute to soaring medical costs.

Sometimes the relationships are hard to follow. For example, a former powerful senator like Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) may have seemed like he was at odds with Big Pharma, but he consistently collected plentiful campaign contributions.  The drug companies are not only interested in rewarding friends; they also want to keep critics from converting their voter friendly talk into action.  It’s not easy to find a representative in Congress, or a senator, who is not on Big Pharma’s campaign contribution list.

The same principle applied to President Obama and presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton.  Their rhetoric was often against Big Pharma.  They nobly and forcefully condemned those who “gutted regulations and put industry insiders in charge of oversight.”  But they still expected, and received, millions of dollars from drug companies and other special interest support.

How does the media fit into this?  Well, since prescription drug advertising was made legal, the biased mainstream media have come to depend on it for survival. Without it, most of the companies, already financially hard pressed, would face potential bankruptcy.  So it is not surprising that the biased mainstream media would suppress reporting anything about this ill-gotten money merry-go-round, or even reporting misleading stories (Fake news) to keep We the People off of their trail.

When you hear or read articles, emanating from “the swamp,” about President Trump’s ties to Big Pharma, just take a look at the charts in this article showing presidential campaign contributions from 2015 and 2016.  They will tell you everything you need to know.

This ploy of accusing others of what you’re actually doing has become pretty popular. Take Russian collusion for an example, or obstruction of justice.  “The swamp” has become very adept at deflecting its sins onto others, and the biased mainstream media is more than happy to play along.

Donald Trump brought attention to campaign donations and lobbying during the presidential campaign. “They get the politicians, and every single one of them is getting money from them,” he said of the drug companies. Bernie Sanders echoed Trump’s sentiment during one of the Democratic debates, asking voters to consider why the price of medication could double, and the government could do nothing to stop it. “There is a reason why these people are putting huge amounts of money into our political system,” he said.

Yes there is, Bernie, yes there is.

Thanks to Martha Rosenberg (AlterNet) and Hunter Lewis for some contributions to this article.

My first reaction was, “Only $84 million?”

The biased mainstream media, on the other hand, chose to look the other way, again, regarding a federal court filing that exposes an $84 million money-laundering conspiracy Democrats executed during the 2016 presidential election, in violation of federal campaign-finance law.

The “swampy” press does continue, however, to feed the dying Russia collusion conspiracy theory, regurgitating the same, old, tired, Democrat talking points that we’ve heard for the last year.

The lawsuit, filed last week in a DC district court, summarizes the Democrat National Committee (DNC)-Clinton conspiracy and provides detailed evidence from Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings confirming the complaint’s allegations that Democrats undertook an extensive scheme to violate federal campaign limits.

There is a legal loophole which allows “bundlers” to raise large sums of money from wealthy donors, more than $400,000 at a time, filtering the funds to the national committees. Democrats and Republicans alike exploit this tactic. But once the money reaches the national committees, other limits apply.

Suspecting the DNC had exceeded those limits, the Committee to Defend the President began reviewing FEC filings to determine whether there was excessive coordination between the DNC and Clinton. What they discovered was much worse. There was “extensive evidence in the Democrats’ own FEC reports, when coupled with their own public statements that demonstrated massive contributions papered through the state parties, to the DNC, and then directly to Clinton’s campaign, in clear violation of federal campaign-finance law.”

The complaint, and an attached exhibit consisting of nearly 20 pages of Excel spreadsheets, detailed the misconduct and provides concrete evidence supporting the allegations.

The illegality of this scheme isn’t a matter of debate. The Supreme Court made clear in 2014 in McCutcheon v. FEC that this exact scenario would violate the law.

Upon receipt of the complaint, the FEC was required to notify those accused of violating federal law of the charges. Then the commissioners were required to determine whether there was “reason to believe” a violation occurred. Following a finding by four FEC commissioners that there was “reason to believe” a violation has occurred, the FEC must investigate the complaint, but in this case of the DNC and Mrs. Clinton, The FEC declined to follow the law.

(It’s funny how “declining to follow the law” somehow became an option under President Barack Obama.)

So why didn’t the FEC act? Well, for starters, FEC Vice-Chair Ellen L. Weintraub is a democrat, as are most of the commissioners. She is just another “swamp rat” doing her best to run interference for the “queen of the swamp (Hillary),” and her minions (the DNC).

Intelligence, apparently, is not a qualification for a commissionership with the FEC. Choosing to do nothing actually backfired in this case. The controlling statute provides that should the FEC fail to act, “during the 120-day period beginning on the date the complaint is filed,” the aggrieved party “may file a petition with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.” Basically escalating the whole matter to a higher court.

By proceeding along their chosen path, the FEC has provided the Committee to Defend The President the right to pursue this case against the DNC and Hillary Clinton directly, with all of the tools of discovery that go along with that process, including the ability to subpoena bank accounts, DNC communications, and question party officials and bundlers.

This promises to shine more sunlight on the Clinton and DNC “shenanigans” than the FEC’s behind-closed-doors consideration and investigation. Also, the Clintons and party officials should not be the only ones concerned: Every big-time donor in on the scheme and acting with the requisite intent faces criminal prosecution, as well.

Even though there is an avalanche of evidence regarding campaign-finance criminality here, the biased mainstream media continues to pursue and harass President Trump because of a $130,000 payment his attorney, Michael Cohen, allegedly made to Stormy Daniels, and claims that payment constituted an illegal campaign contribution.

These continuing examples of “selective justice” are a “cancer” growing within our country and its government. If the cancer is allowed to continue to grow, I would recommend learning how to speak Russian and/or Chinese.

Thank you to Margot Cleveland and “The Federalist” for their contributions to this article.

There are five ways that people will probably react to this title:

One – “I agree. Thank God for Fox News!

Two – “What? You’ve got to be kidding me. Fox News just spews conservative lies!

Three – “Fox News is ok, but isn’t thanking God for them going a little overboard?”

Four – “Why would you thank God for Fox News? These cable news channels are all the same.”

Five – “What is Fox News?”

Ok, fair enough. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but let me explain why I thank God for Fox News.

I have always found that the best place to start is at the beginning.

Prior to, and during, World War II, people got their news from local newspapers and local radio stations. The reporting of “news” was very localized and independent.

After World War II, in 1948, the three major television networks (NBC, CBS and ABC) began broadcasting. They all had their “nightly news” shows that were 30 minutes long. Take away the advertising time, and they had 20 minutes to report the news of the day. This was challenging, and broadcasters had to decide what news made the cut and what news didn’t. This was the beginning of the power of the network news media based on their selective viewpoints and selective dissemination of the news.

Then in 1980 a new news media showed up on our TVs…, a 24 hour news channel on cable TV, called CNN. CNN had a completely different problem. Their challenge was not trying to decide what news made the cut and what news didn’t. Their problem was finding enough news to fill its broadcast day (remember this for later). Early on, CNN was not much of a factor in the news world, because not many people had cable TV. The network news shows still ruled the day.

The cable TV audience, of course, continued to grow, and CNN flourished, unchallenged, until 1996.

In 1996, the Fox News Channel and MSNBC were launched to complete with CNN.

As of today, Fox News has become, by far, the number one cable news channel, followed by MSNBC, with CNN bringing up the rear. Quite a distant rear, actually. During prime time news broadcasts, the three major networks still have the most viewers, by a margin of about 4 to 1 over cable news, so what they choose to present as “the news” is still pretty influential.

Ok, this is all well and good, but why do I thank God for Fox News?

Here are some good and typical examples/reason:

The other day, three gentlemen were released, after years in captivity, from North Korea, and brought home by our Secretary of State, thanks to the efforts and policies of President Trump. One network, Fox News, covered the story from beginning to end, pretty extensively. One other network made a brief mention of the story, and all of the other networks felt this was not newsworthy at all, and did not even give it a mention.

The day after the three hostages were released, Fox News reported that our forces in Iraq managed to capture five top level ISIS commanders. A story, again, that reflects positively on President Trump, and his policies regarding ISIS. NONE of the other networks felt this story was newsworthy enough to even mention it. All of the other news was soooo much more important that this story did not even deserve 10 seconds of their time. CNN and MSNBC have 24 hours of time to fill! Really? Not even 10 seconds?!

These are just two recent examples, but believe me, stuff like this goes on every day, 365 days a year. You can say what you want about Fox News, but at the very least, they aren’t withholding the news for some reason.

This is why I say “Thank God for Fox News!”

Fox News’ motto is, “Fair and balanced. We report, you decide.” I like that. If Fox News didn’t exist, I wouldn’t even have the chance to decide how I felt about certain things or events because I wouldn’t even know about them in the first place.  Like the old saying goes, “You don’t know what you don’t know.”

Are these examples of a media bias that exists in much of our mainstream media? I’m just reporting, you decide.

Again, “Thank God for Fox News!”

Here are my top 35 favorite movies of all-time!

Brainstorm – 1983. I like the whole concept of being able to record all of the senses during a person’s experience. That and the afterlife element of the story makes this movie a winner for me. I also love Natalie Wood and Christopher Walken.

It’s a Wonderful Life – 1947. If I don’t get to watch this movie five times around Christmas I’m disappointed.

Contact – 1997. This is an adaptation of the Carl Sagan novel, and I love Carl Sagan. I love the whole concept of contacting extraterrestrials, the afterlife, etc.

The Great Outdoors – 1988. Classic vacation comedy that takes place in the north woods of Wisconsin, at a lakeside cabin. It stars John Candy and Dan Aykroyd.

The Big Blue – 1988. I’m not sure why I like this movie so much, but I do. The odd story of friendship and competitiveness, the characters, the settings in Greece and Italy, the ocean backdrop, or how it is all wrapped together. Rosanna Arquette is in the film as well, and I like her a lot.

Silent Running – 1972. After the end of all plant life on Earth, an ecologist (Lowell) maintains a greenhouse on a space station in order to preserve various plants for future generations. He is assisted by three robots and a small human crew. He rebels when he is ordered to destroy the greenhouse in favor of carrying cargo, a decision that puts him at odds with everyone but his mechanical companions. Lowell and his robots are forced to do anything necessary to keep their precious plants alive. It’s a quirky but cool story.

Bandolero! – 1968. My favorite, classic, 60’s, western. It’s got a good story, and a great cast with Dean Martin, James Stewart, Raquel Welch and George Kennedy.

Heroes – 1977. This film stars Henry Winkler, Sally Field and Harrison Ford (in his first post-Star Wars role, but filmed before that movie’s release). Winkler plays a Vietnam War veteran with PTSD who sets out to find the men from his unit that had served with him in Vietnam. This was the first film released after the conflict ended in 1975 to address Vietnam War issues.

Top Gun – 1986. I love the story, I love the cast and I love the music. The story of hotshot fighter pilots who are the best of the best.

Voices – 1979. This is a mushy movie about a musician and his love for a young deaf woman, who’s a teacher of deaf children, and who dreams of becoming a dancer. It’s definitely a chick flick, but hey, guilty as charged. I really like it anyway.

Goodfellas – 1990. My favorite “mob” movie. It’s brutal, interesting and funny. I love the cast of Robert De Niro, Ray Liotta, Joe Pesci and Paul Sorvino.

Enemy Mine – 1985. During a war between humans and an alien, reptilian, race, a human spaceship pilot ends up stranded on an alien world, along with an alien enemy fighter. They are forced to work together to survive. As time goes by, they become unlikely friends. It’s a feel good story about friendship, set in an unlikely place with unlikely characters.

Full Metal Jacket – 1987. Director Stanley Kubrick’s take on the Vietnam War follows smart-aleck Private Davis (Matthew Modine), quickly christened “Joker” by his foul-mouthed drill sergeant (R. Lee Ermey), as he endures the rigors of basic training. Joker graduates, becomes a Marine, and is sent to Vietnam as a journalist, covering, and eventually participating in, the bloody Battle of Hué. If you’re a Marine this movie is your “holy grail.” If you want to know what it’s like to be a Marine, this is the film to watch.

“300” – 2007. The story of the historic Battle of Thermopylae, or “the hot gates,” all the way back in 480 B.C., between a small group of Spartan warriors and the massive Persian army. It’s kind of like the Greek version of The Battle of the Alamo. Awesome battle scenes.

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby – 2006. This movie is a redneck’s dream. It’s about an unlikely NASCAR race car driver, and it’s funny, funny, funny. It stars Will Ferrell.

Shenandoah – 1965. A film about the Civil War. James Stewart has remained steadfast in his opposition to the war on moral grounds. However, he is forced to become involved in the conflict when his son-in-law is called upon to serve in the Confederate forces, his youngest son is captured by the Union army, and another son and his pregnant daughter-in-law are killed by looters.

Avatar – 2009. A classic story of greedy corporations and the military complex versus the little guys. Awesome special effects that take place on the wonderful alien world of Pandora.

The Vikings – 1958. This is a classic movie that appeals to my Viking heritage. The cast of Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis, Janet Leigh and Ernest Borgnine is great as well.

Joe Dirt – 2001. What can I say? This is a stupid redneck movie, but I think it’s funny, and I love it.

Rocky – 1976. This is the classic feel good story of a lovable underdog. I love underdogs and I love feel good stories…, so there you have it.

Gladiator – 2000. The story of a Roman general (Russel Crowe) who ends up fighting as a gladiator and getting revenge for his murdered family. This just a well-made and well-acted movie.

Saturday Night Fever – 1977. This movie was the soundtrack to our lives back in 1977. .

The Right Stuff – 1983. This film chronicles the first 15 years of America’s space program. It focuses on the lives of the seven original Mercury astronauts and the dangers and frustrations experienced by them and NASA in general. In other words, this is right up my alley.

Braveheart – 1995. The medieval story of, Scottish patriot, William Wallace’s revenge for the murder of his wife and the treatment of his countrymen by England.

Stand By Me – 1986. I like this movie because the kids in the movie remind me of myself and my friends when I was growing up.

The Hangover – 2009. Just a funny movie with funny characters, that takes place in Las Vegas.

Troy – 2004. Based on Homer’s epic story “The Iliad,” this film portrays the battle between the ancient kingdoms of Troy and Sparta (the story of Helen of Troy and the Trojan Horse as well) and the historic battle between Achilles (Brad Pitt) and Hector (Eric Bana). Achilles leads his Myrmidons along with the rest of the Greek army invading the historical city of Troy, defended by Hector’s Trojan army. Cool battle scenes and an updated depiction of this classic story.

Forrest Gump – 1994. I love the story and the lessons it teaches. I can relate to the historical references in the film as I have lived through and experienced them all as well.

The Matrix – 1999. This is an interesting film that really makes you think. I learned that we are the ones that really limit ourselves form accomplishing anything.

Dumb and Dumber – 1994. A very stupid movie, but very funny movie as well, about two friends that are idiots.

Apollo 13 – 1995. “Failure is not an option.” This is one of my favorite lines, and it is taken from this movie. We have NASA, we have astronauts and we have a true story of overcoming impossible odds. I’m in.

Star Trek – 2009. The story of how USS Enterprise, the most-sophisticated starship ever built, got its crew of Captain Kirk, Spock, Scotty and “Bones” Dr. Leonard McCoy. They did a great job casting for these characters. I like them just as much, if not more, than the original cast.

Jurassic Park – 1993. Who wouldn’t like to be able to see actual dinosaurs in a zoo-like environment? I would, I would!   The whole story here of how they made it happen to how the theme park came crashing down is Great. The special effects are, of course, amazing.

Pulp Fiction – 1994. This is just a cool organized crime movie, directed by Quentin Tarantino, with a great cast that has interwoven stories and a lot of cool music. John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Ving Rhames, Uma Thurman and Bruce Willis star in the film, and there are a lot of other good actors in the movie as well.

There are a lot of other movies that I like as well, that didn’t make my list. I had to cut my list off at some point!

We all have our own tastes and likes, of course.

If there is a movie that you just can’t imagine why I don’t have it on my list, let me know.

 

 

The liberal biased mainstream media just won’t give up!

According to a recent Monmouth University poll, 77% of people believe the mainstream media engages in reporting fake news. Wow, just think about that.  That’s three out of every four people!  And the other 23% either don’t understand English, don’t have a TV or don’t watch the news.

But yet the biased mainstream media continues to manufacture their propaganda disguised as news.   They just don’t get, or don’t care that we get, what they’re up to.

For example, I was reading a recent article by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large.

In this article they refer to a “study by the conservative Media Research Center.”  When do you ever see them preface other polling sources as being liberal?  Exactly.  You don’t.  Case closed.  Bias exposed….again.

Anyway, be that as it may, this article referred to a study made by The Media Research Center, which claimed that 91% of the nightly news coverage on President Trump was negative.

My initial thought was, “Only 91%?” I guess I would have to challenge anyone to show me the 9% of positive coverage.  The other 9% must really just be neutral coverage, that wasn’t necessarily negative. That would make more sense.

This article was really a response to a tweet from President Trump that read:

“The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?”

Here’s my advice, Mr. President, for what it’s worth.

The daily press briefings have turned into a game of “gotcha” for most of the correspondents there.   And they are so aggressive, rude and downright nasty.  Most of them are more interested in making news with their questions than with getting any real information from the administration.  I truly feel bad for your Press Secretary, Sarah Sanders.

Rather than taking away any credentials, I would change the whole format. I would have the correspondents submit their questions in writing before the briefing, then Sarah could choose which questions she felt were worth addressing, and she could prepare her answers as well.

Nowhere is it written that the Press Secretary has to serve as the Press’ punching bag for a half hour every day.

You can’t change the players, but you can change the game.

In fact, there’s no evidence that Russian operatives manipulated or cast ONE fraudulent vote.

So where’s the outrage about plain old American voter fraud?

There is no outrage by the biased mainstream media because they do not want to bring any attention to voter fraud. Fraudulent voters are friends of “the swamp!”

99.999% of fraudulent votes are cast for Democrat/Liberal candidates. (That’s my own unscientific number, but until someone can show me numbers otherwise, I’m sticking with it!)

Are you starting to get the connections to our Democrat friends?

Illegal immigrants.

Illegal votes.

Illegal voters.

Illegal immigrant convicted criminals protected at the expense of U.S. citizens.

Illegal immigrants voting in our elections.

Illegal, illegal, illegal, illegal!

As usual, the Democrats are more than happy to drag our Constitution and our government processes through the mud whenever it can help their corrupt cause somehow.

So, what are we talking about here? Let’s take a look.

Based on a study, cited by the Washington Times, Hillary Clinton benefited to the tune of 834,381 non-citizen votes in the 2016 election.

If they’re admitting over 800,00 you know it was probably three, four or five times that!)

Based on national polling by a consortium of universities (And which way do universities typically lean?), 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult non-citizens in the U.S. voted in November.

(What!? Now we’re up to 20 million illegal adult non-citizens! That would extrapolate out to 30 or 40 million non-citizens including non-adults! This problem is worse than I thought!)

(And you’re expecting me to believe that only 6.4 percent of these illegals voted in the 2016 election? No, only 6.4 percent ADMITTED to voting in the 2016 election. Considerably more actually did vote. And they voted more than once probably!)

Let’s stop a minute to reflect. Let’s picture in our heads some Democrat, lecturing us about how important the vote is, and how important it is that “every voice be heard.”

Ok, that’s enough. If you think about it too long you’ll start to feel ill.

According to The New York Times, President Trump’s electoral-integrity commission has found that that large-scale illegal voting swung a pivotal Senate election in 2016. Kris Kobach, the commission’s vice chairman, called it “highly likely” that the election of Maggie Hassan, New Hampshire’s Democratic candidate for the Senate, was “stolen through voter fraud.” He said it was “possible” that Hillary Clinton’s narrow victory in the state was the result of illegal voting, too.

Mr. Kobach’s evidence for these claims is that 5,313 people who voted in New Hampshire in 2016 do not actually reside in the state. The theory is that these voters came over the border, or were even bused in, from neighboring Democratic strongholds like Massachusetts or Vermont.

Mrs. Clinton won New Hampshire by 2,736 votes, or 0.3 percentage points. Ms. Hassan’s margin was slimmer, 1,017 votes out of nearly 750,000 cast.

Are you ready for some more?

The Heritage Foundation has nicely laid out the different types of voter fraud lurking out there. There are many ways for criminals to steal votes and change the outcome of an election. These include:

• Impersonation fraud at the polls: Voting in the name of other legitimate voters and voters who have died, moved away, or lost their right to vote because they are felons, but remain registered.
• False registrations: Voting under fraudulent voter registrations that either use a phony name and a real or fake address or claim residence in a particular jurisdiction where the registered voter does not actually live and is not entitled to vote.
• Duplicate voting: Registering in multiple locations and voting in the same election in more than one jurisdiction or state.
• Fraudulent use of absentee ballots: Requesting absentee ballots and voting without the knowledge of the actual voter; or obtaining the absentee ballot from a voter and either filling it in directly and forging the voter’s signature or illegally telling the voter who to vote for.
• Buying votes: Paying voters to cast either an in-person or absentee ballot for a particular candidate.
• Illegal “assistance” at the polls: Forcing or intimidating voters—particularly the elderly, disabled, illiterate, and those for whom English is a second language—to vote for particular candidates while supposedly providing them with “assistance.”
• Ineligible voting: Illegal registration and voting by individuals who are not U.S. citizens, are convicted felons, or are otherwise not eligible to vote.
• Altering the vote count: Changing the actual vote count either in a precinct or at the central location where votes are counted.
• Ballot petition fraud: Forging the signatures of registered voters on the ballot petitions that must be filed with election officials in some states for a candidate or issue to be listed on the official ballot.

AND BELIEVE ME, OUR DEMOCRAT FRIENDS USE ALL OF THESE AND PROBABLY OTHERS WE HAVEN’T EVEN HEARD OF YET!

The Heritage Foundation’s Voter Fraud Database contains a sampling of voter fraud cases from across the country, all of which have resulted in either a criminal conviction or an overturned election. The database is not representative of the full scope of the problem, however. Unfortunately, too often voter fraud goes undetected, and when it is discovered, overburdened prosecutors seldom choose to prosecute these cases.

The Heritage Foundation’s Voter Fraud database has a total of 1,132 proven instances of election fraud on file.

Americans should be alarmed. These entries represent irrefutable evidence that fraud has impacted elections in 47 states, and across all levels of government.

Worse still, these cases are, of course, just the tip of America’s election fraud iceberg.

And remember which political party is AGAINST requiring IDs when voting? Of course it would be the Democrats.

Again, remember, the last word in Democrats is “rats!”

Knowing all of this now makes President Trump’s victory even more impressive. Can you imagine how big of a margin President Trump actually beat Hillary by?

The NFL Players Association (NFLPA) filed a grievance with the NFL on behalf of free-agent safety Eric Reid on Monday (5/7/18), joining quarterback Colin Kaepernick in that regard.

Mr. Reid is one of the players who chose not to stand for our National Anthem last season, among others.

The player’s union based its grievance on the premise that no NFL rule mandates that players must stand during the playing of the national anthem. The league has indicated it respects “the rights of players to demonstrate,” and the collective bargaining agreement states “league rules supersede club rules,” according to a NFLPA press release.

Monday’s move by the Players Association comes after Reid and his representatives last week filed a grievance under the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement, alleging collusion has denied him a job for the upcoming 2018 season.

“Colin and Eric have taken courageous action at the expense of their professional careers and personal lives,” Reid’s attorney, Mark Geragos said in a statement to NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport. Geragos also represents Kaepernick in his grievance case.

(You’re right Mr. Geragos, your clients did take, “action at the expense of their professional careers and personal lives.” Now they are feeling the consequences for their actions, but now all of a sudden they and you don’t like it.)

“We stand shoulder to shoulder with the NFLPA in our fight for justice, equality and inalienable rights of all Americans.”

(That sounds really good Mr. Geragos, but you forgot to qualify your prior statement. It should read: “We stand shoulder to shoulder with the NFLPA in our fight for justice, equality and inalienable rights of all Americans…except those that don’t agree with us.”)

The vast, vast, vast majority of Americans, football fans, and NFL team owners don’t argue that these players have the right to kneel during the national anthem.

However, the vast, vast, vast majority of Americans, football fans, and NFL team owners also don’t like it. They don’t like players choosing to disrespect our country, our flag, or our national anthem by kneeling during the anthem, and they feel they have the right to feel that way.

Additionally, the team owners believe they have the right to not employ players who would have a negative impact their team, either monetarily or public relations-wise.

So the bottom line is, yes, you have the right to say or do whatever you want, but, I also have the right to not agree with or like what you are saying or doing.    

Both Reid and Kaepernick are free agents, and looking for employment by one of the 32 teams in the NFL. As of now, no team has chosen to sign either one of them to a contract.

The NFL has not responded to requests for comments on this matter.

Thanks to NFL.com for some of the information included in this article.