Tag: Media

James Comey’s Stumble on the Beach

In a recent post on his Instagram account, former FBI Director James Comey put up a photo of seashells on the sand that had been arranged to form the following pair of numbers: 86 47.

Accompanying the photo was a not so cryptic comment from Comey: “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.”

The social media subsequently exploded with reactions from individuals who were outraged over the post.

Comey responded with another post, alleging that he “didn’t realize some folks associate it [the number 86] with violence.” He added that he is “opposed to violence in all circumstances,” and he took down the original post.

To say that Comey’s comments regarding the number 86 stretch the boundaries of credibility is an understatement, especially when you consider who Comey is, the position in government that he previously held, and the individual with whom the number 47 is associated.

As a high-ranking law enforcement official, Comey’s prior duties included the prosecution of participants in organized crime. Such participants routinely use the number 86 as a code word for “assassination.”

According to Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang, the number 86 means “to kill, to murder; to execute judicially.”

Perhaps surprisingly for Comey, the seriousness of his wholly ill-advised post appears to be increasing with the passage of time. This is because the individual with whom the second seashell number is associated was saved by God’s grace from two attempts of the first seashell number’s kind.

In fact, Homeland Security Department Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the agency she heads as well as the Secret Service are investigating the matter.

FBI Director Kash Patel and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have also joined in the investigative tasks.

Director Patel indicated that the FBI is ready to assist the Secret Service with “all necessary support.” And Director Gabbard stressed that the administration and the Secret Service are taking the incident “very seriously.”

“There has to be accountability for this,” Director Gabbard told Fox News host Jesse Watters.

Predictably, the mainstream media have failed in their responsibility to objectively and truthfully report on the story. Instead they appear to be carrying water for the former FBI director.

Headlines about the incident speak volumes, as demonstrated below:

— “With Comey questioning, the Trump administration again targets speech” (The Washington Post)

— “The old slang term ‘86’ probably started as restaurant-worker jargon. Suddenly it’s in the news” (The Associated Press)

— “Trump admin’s Comey investigation is meant to stoke a culture of fear among Americans” (MSNBC)

— “Ex-FBI boss interviewed by Secret Service over Trump seashell post” (The BBC)

It just so happens that Comey’s seashell encounter during his stroll on the beach occurred just a few days prior to the release of his latest book. Could it have been a way to generate some pre-release buzz? In any event, he has been making the rounds on every media outlet that is willing to pitch him softballs.

While appearing on MSNBC with Nicole Wallace, he seemed to take on the role of victim.

“You are back in the middle of a political firestorm,” Wallace said.

Comey responded, “Yeah, for walking on the beach with my wife.”

He went on to describe himself as “a grandfather and an author wearing sweaters and jeans,” explaining that he had “posted a silly picture of shells” that he apparently “thought was a clever way to express a political viewpoint…”

A political viewpoint? FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino sees it very differently.

In a post on X, Deputy Director Bongino said that the numeric symbolism was being used by copycats to send out threats that the FBI is mandated to investigate, which requires valuable time and resources.

“We are now dealing with copycats, sending cryptic threats to public figures, using the ‘86’ reference,” Deputy Director Bongino wrote. “Whether they turn out to be legitimate threats or not, taxpayer-funded public safety agents are going to have to run these all out and investigate them.”

If a prosecution against Comey is sought, it is likely to be a difficult one, considering free speech and intent arguments. However, time will tell whether other significant facts will emerge that justify legal action against the former FBI director.

In the meantime, many like me are still hoping that the haters’ hardened hearts are transformed.

Still sending up prayers, too, for the one who despite the hate, fights on anyway.

Goodbye to MSNBC

Media and technology conglomerate Comcast is spinning off cable news network MSNBC from its roster, along with a number of other cable networks.

The company announced it will create a new publicly traded entity, which will house MSNBC and NBCUniversal’s additional cable television networks.

Comcast is giving the new company an apt moniker, “SpinCo.”

Unveiling of the plans are shaking up the media landscape and sending shock waves through the network’s offices.

It all came to a head when MSNBC lost over half its viewers following the electoral triumph of President elect Donald Trump.

An additional ratings drop occurred after Joe Scarborough, host of the network’s program “Morning Joe,” revealed that he and wife/co-host Mika Brzezinski had recently met with President elect Trump at Mar-a-Lago, ostensibly to “restart communications.”

The ratings tank and spin-off talk had Scarborough questioning his own future employment with the channel.

“I could be completely wrong. We could all be fired a year from now. You never know what’s going to happen tomorrow,” he said on his show.

There are a number of reasons that the spin-off is happening. First up is the fact that streaming is clobbering cable. Execs are understandably concerned about the steady increase in cord cutting that has taken place, especially among the younger demographic. This segment of viewers is accustomed to having non-bundled options and is partial to streaming media.

Comcast has also let it be known that current chairman of NBCUniversal Media Group Mark Lazarus will be named SpinCo’s CEO. Sources have indicated to Variety that Lazarus spoke to an audience of concerned staffers and talent, which included MSNBC personalities Rachel Maddow, Chris Jansing, and Katy Tur.

MSNBC will evidently be joined by the business news network CNBC in being detached from NBC News.

Since the two networks will no longer be a part of NBC, attendees at the meeting with Lazarus reportedly expressed concerns about whether the use of familiar symbols, which have been used by MSNBC for decades, will be allowed to continue.

In a shocking admission, Lazarus said that because of the spin-off he wasn’t sure whether MSNBC would have to give up its current image, identity, or home.

“Everyone is in a panic because everything is up in the air,” one MSNBC source told The New York Post.

Journalists at the network CNBC are coming apart at the seams at the prospect of being separated from NBC’s news division. This is because MSNBC routinely shares reporting, and a significant part of the network’s daytime schedule uses correspondents from NBC News.

Andrea Mitchell, chief foreign affairs correspondent and chief Washington correspondent for NBC News, has anchored a daily MSNBC show since 2008. And MSNBC’s Katy Tur and José Díaz-Balart have dual roles as journalists for NBC News as well.

Lazarus was unable to answer questions about MSNBC’s newsgathering and whether the cable news outlet would have to develop its own capability for collecting and verifying news, which is a daunting task to say the least.

The idea of giving MSNBC a makeover has been tossed around for a long time. The network wasn’t always the far-left echo chamber that it is today.

Back in 1996 it originally launched as a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC (although Microsoft would later divest its stake in the TV network).

Like fellow cable networks had previously done, MSNBC would go on to broaden its horizons by doing political coverage as well as opinion-oriented programming. A variety of viewpoints were represented on its programs, ones that ranged across a spectrum from Phil Donahue on the left to Tucker Carlson on the right.

Oh the good ol’ days, when there was a fairly clear line of demarcation between hard news and editorial opinion. That line served a number of important purposes, including a commitment to truth and accuracy in the conveyance of national and international information as well as an adherence to a journalistic code of ethics.

It could be that the good ol’ news days are going back to the future. And the sport of intellectual sparring will make its own separate comeback.

Let’s all stay tuned in whatever new media way is preferred. And may the Truth win out.

Journalism Goes Hollywood

It’s the mainstay of the entertainment industry.

Take bits of creative fabrication, put them all together in celluloid form, and pass the whole thing off as reality.

Voila! A big-screen, little-screen, and/or digital-screen production is born.

Once upon a time entertainment fare didn’t infiltrate journalistic territory. Instead it was happily confined to its own terrain.

And there was a kind of unwritten truth-in-advertising code within the journalism profession as well, secured by an internal bond of trust in news media venues across the culture.

Those days are long gone. The dividing line between entertainment and news media has almost been completely obliterated, and nowhere is it more obvious than within the realm of politics.

So what happens when news journalism goes Hollywood?

Well, in the past professional journalists pretty much had a singular goal, which was actually outlined in the first draft of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics, dated 1926: “Seek truth and report it.”

It appears as though way too many journalists have chosen to ditch their reporter notepads and are now itching to get into the Hollywood production game.

Let’s take a look at how Hollywood has done things for decades.

Filmmakers select a story to tell. It can be an original idea, an extension of a previous artistic work, or myriad of other fanciful combinations.

Screenwriters create a script, which oftentimes undergoes multiple revisions in order to increase dramatic effect or enhance entertainment value.

Production designers and art directors create visuals and construct sets.

Locations are scouted and choice venues are selected.

Filming begins, with repeated scene shoots taking place so that the finest performances can be selected from the mix.

An extensive editing process occurs in which scenes are examined, and segments of footage can be re-arranged and/or cut out completely if so desired.

The movie is then assembled and delivered in its completed state.

And of course there is a whole industry built on marketing the final product.

If we apply the above-outlined entertainment template to the news business, it begins to become clear as to what has occurred within a once-noble profession.

Journalism has gone Hollywood.

Some may immediately say, “So what’s the problem?”

The answer is simple. The Fourth Estate is now on life support. However, The Fourth Estate has, and always will be an essential component in keeping a free society free. So if The Fourth Estate truly dies, so does our liberty.

Traditionally, journalists have had an ethical obligation to inform the public, taking particular care to report truthfully and accurately. They have also had an ethical obligation to clarify mistakes that are made and/or issue retractions.

The public hasn’t seen a whole lot of this of late. Instead the opposite has been occurring. Here’s a glaring example.

Vice president and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris recently sat down for an interview with CBS. After a less than sterling outing, it was discovered that the network had used some filmmaking techniques to give the vice president’s performance an extreme Hollywood makeover.

Interviewer Bill Whitaker had asked some rudimentary questions, but the responses given were woefully insufficient. That’s when the network went to work on editing and rearranging her remarks, ultimately making her appear to say something that she didn’t and to be someone that she isn’t.

As a promotion for the segment, the network had released raw footage of her answer to a question about Israel and leader Benjamin Netanyahu. It was embarrassingly bad.

But when CBS later aired the same Q&A, viewers were presented with a new and improved version of her response.

The network had evidently gone to great lengths to produce an edited, i.e., quasi-fictional response, one that had been digitally cut from an earlier part of the interview and re-inserted in the “preferred” place.

Also present in the edited version was some dubbed-in narration, which served to cover up some of her less than perfect responses.

Those who actually still care about the future of journalism, including The New York Post editorial board, have demanded that CBS release the full transcript of the interview. And according to The Post, former CBS staffers are demanding an independent investigation into the matter.

CBS is not alone in jumping into the Hollywood editing game. Action News on 6 ABC (located in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania) aired two different answers from the vice president regarding her economic policies, and then went on to publish the edited version on its website.

Times sure have changed. So-called news outlets are routinely copying the fanciful storytelling and elaborate production of liberal Hollywood. And fiction and fabrication are now unapologetically presented as fact and truth.

Yes, time is running out.

But rest assured, there are still a lot of us out here who will never stop hoping for a Hollywood happy ending and a return to truth.

Jon Voight: A Hollywood Rebel

As most folks know full well, Jon Voight is a multi-nominated and Academy Award winner as well as a four-time Golden Globe recipient, whose sterling career has spanned the decades.

The actor also happens to be an exception in today’s celebrity world in that he is one of those rare independent-minded thinkers.

Voight came to prominence in the late 1960s with his Oscar nominated performance in the iconic movie “Midnight Cowboy.”

During the 1970s, he cemented his brand as a genuine Hollywood A-lister with starring roles in the films “Deliverance,” “Coming Home,” and “The Champ.”

He took the Best Actor Oscar for his role in “Coming Home,” after having been nominated for the award three times prior.

In an interview on a recent episode of Lisa Boothe’s podcast, Voight was direct in his description of the current state of so-called journalism, as practiced by today’s compromised media.

“… this is just like Pravda. There’s no difference,” Voight said.

The actor also opined that if one happens to be a reader of The New York Times, then what is being ingested is nothing but “phony stuff.”

Voight has firsthand experience in dealing with what those in the news media and various other subdivisions of society are promulgating. He himself has been the recipient of some intense peer pressure as well as a sizable degree of wrath from a cancel culture that has run amok.

Still, he chooses to live and work in one of the most “woke” places on the planet, the ever-tilting Left Coast.

Voight envisions a simple way in which folks can counter the press distortion that is taking place each and every day. He encourages a more pro-active approach to the exercise of freedom with regard to news and entertainment choices.

“There are many brave people that are stepping up and very brave teachers who are in the industry, the entertainment industry, and in the…news industry that are stepping up and giving us a direction. So we have to find those people and stick with them and support them,” Voight stated.

His willingness to speak what is on his mind has not inhibited his ability to continue in his chosen artistic profession. Voight is currently in New Haven, Connecticut, filming a feature-length finale of the hit series “Ray Donovan.” It is a production that almost didn’t happen.

“Ray Donovan” is a Showtime television crime drama series. The storyline centers around the main character of the series’ title, who is portrayed by Liev Schreiber.

Donovan is a professional “fixer” for the rich and famous. He can make anyone’s problems disappear; that is, except those that are created by his own family.

Voight plays Mickey Donovan, Ray’s conniving father.

When the pilot episode first aired in June 2013, it was the biggest premiere Showtime ever had. For his work on the show, Voight was awarded a Golden Globe in 2014 for Best Supporting Actor.

Then in February 2020, after seven successful seasons, the cable network abruptly announced the cancellation of the series, which brought frustration to viewers of the show, particularly because several plot points were left unresolved.

The unusual decision to cancel the series was reportedly done for political reasons. It all happened amid the merger between CBS (owner of Showtime) and Viacom. Showtime seemingly “did not recognize the power of the fan base and social media.”

Fan power ultimately won out. In February 2021 it was announced that the show was returning in the form of a feature-length movie, which is set to premiere in 2022. The new film version picks up where season seven left off.

This was great news for Voight, who once again is back in front of the Showtime cameras.

Voight, of course, has a famous daughter, mega-movie actress in her own right, Angelina Jolie. What folks may not know is that Voight’s family also includes brother James Wesley Voight, who goes by Chip Taylor, a singer-songwriter with the hit tunes “Wild Thing” and “Angel of the Morning” to his credit.

Voight’s view of faith and family may have been shaped by his Catholic Christian background and his attendance at a Catholic high school.

In 2019 he said that God is asking Americans to protect the values of family during these times.

“Family is being attacked by people who are really trying to tear down the fabric of our society,” Voight told The Christian Post.

“Imagine, God’s asking us to help Him out. Can you imagine? That’s the greatest thing!” he said.

The actor then quoted Scripture.

“‘Who will go for me,’ says God to Isaiah, and he says ‘send me.’ There are many people who are really strong people, very bright people and very good people who have said, ‘send me.’ That’s why I have to think that there’s no doubt of that. It’s all been written: we will win the battle,” he said.

“…we know it’s hard but this battle will be won by those who pursue the truth; they will prevail,” Voight added.

In July 2020 he posted a video on his Twitter account in which he speaks of the greatness of America as a precious providential gift. It was characterized by some in the establishment press as a religious rant.

“God the Almighty gave all this to us, so we as a civilization with all our greatness must give back and we shall protect the USA with God, and He who understands this Liberty must protect as well,” Voight states.

He then calls for a return to fundamental principles that have undergirded American life.

“Let us all protect this beautiful nation,” Voight says, adding, “Let us all give back. We must not take for granted this breath we breathe, because without God’s love, we would not be here. So bring back faith and trust.”

I see Voight as a Hollywood rebel with a cause, one for which America can be grateful.

Democrats Lose Their Humanity

Human beings generally have a characteristic response when made aware that a fellow human being, be it a loved one, friend, or stranger, has succumbed to a serious illness or has received an ominous medical diagnosis.

Responses tend to reflect a deep-seated empathy and understanding that are innate in people who maintain a well-balanced psychological, emotional, and spiritual equilibrium. If direct or indirect interaction occurs with a suffering person, encouragement and well-wishes typically flow.

On the other hand, if individuals seem to be indifferent to another’s suffering, in common parlance they are likely to be described as cold, heartless, and/or lacking in compassion. Response to news of another’s misfortunes on the part of these individuals is quite the opposite and may generally fall within the category of psychological dysfunction.

In my assessment, this second description is a wholly appropriate way to characterize the insensitive, uncompassionate, and outright cruel remarks that have been made by several Democrats and their allies in the news media and Hollywood regarding President Donald Trump’s positive COVID-19 test and his subsequent illness.

To put it bluntly, a lack of basic human decency has been on display by many on the left. Since the news first hit that President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump had tested positive for COVID-19 and the president was hospitalized, numerous Democrats and their media mouthpieces actually expressed wishes that the president would depart this life.

“It’s been against my moral identity to tweet this for the past four years, but, I hope he dies,” tweeted Zara Rahim, a former national spokesperson for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and a staffer in the White House of then-President Barack Obama.

Rahim subsequently ended up deleting the message.

Steve Cox, an Independent congressional candidate running in California’s 39th District, expressed his hope that President Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden would both die.

The content of statements made by many of President Trump’s political opponents was so heinous Twitter had to issue a warning that the platform would take action against users for tweets that were rooting for the president’s demise. Facebook and other social media platforms followed suit.

Twitter’s announcement was met with immediate criticism from two Democratic congresswomen who are part of a congressional cluster known as “The Squad.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., complained that this policy had not been applied to herself and her colleagues, tweeting the following: “you mean to tell us you could’ve done this the whole time?”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., tweeted, “This is messed up. The death threats towards us should have been taking more seriously by [Twitter].”

Twitter vowed to rectify matters.

“We hear the voices who feel that we’re enforcing some policies inconsistently,” Twitter stated in a post. “We agree we must do better, and we are working together inside to do so.”

Meanwhile other Trump-haters went about claiming that the president’s diagnosis was not real.

In a Facebook post, documentary film-maker Michael Moore opined that the president could be lying about having coronavirus as an opportunity “TO PUSH FOR DELAYING/POSTPONING THE ELECTION.”

Moore also used his Twitter account to snidely state, “My thoughts and prayers, too, are with Covid-19.”

At the top of his opening monologue on “Saturday Night Live,” comedian Chris Rock said something similar to Moore.

“President Trump’s in the hospital from COVID, and I just want to say my heart goes out to COVID,” Rock said.

Joy Reid of MSNBC suggested that the president was pretending to be infected so he would be able to “get out of the debates.”

“Here’s how wrecked Trump’s credibility is at this point: I’ve got a cellphone full of texts from people who aren’t sure whether to believe Trump actually has covid,” Reid tweeted.

Other questionable posts by Bette Midler, Patricia Arquette, Kathy Griffin, Rob Reiner, and Michael Rappaport made their way to the social media.

To their credit, Rachel Maddow, Alyssa Milano, Jamie Lee Curtis, and the Biden campaign responded appropriately.

Not so with other high-profile individuals, including a couple of top Democrat political leaders.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., hit a new low. She actually blamed the president for getting sick and then tried to soften her comments by tacking on her usual disclaimer: “I’m praying for him.”

And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., carped in a statement that President Trump’s diagnosis is what happens “when you ignore science.”

It is difficult to find words to describe or ways to explain the all-consuming hatred that the left continues to spew out against the president. The 90 percent-plus derogatory coverage he has received from the lopsided media is no doubt a factor.

Human beings are capable of being programmed to hate.

The Democratic Party has spent every day for the past five years devising schemes, first to undermine his candidacy and then to undermine his presidency.

Human beings are capable of being programmed to be distrustful.

The complicit media have name-called, derided, maligned, and outright lied about the president’s person and policies.

Human beings are capable of being programmed to be cynical.

There is a domino effect that can occur when negative emotions are continuously teed up and then given a solid nudge. Discontent can tip into arrogance, arrogance into anger, and anger into vengefulness.

This is the way humanity is lost.

The question is whether Democrats even care.

Democrats and Media Allies Stoke Coronavirus Fears

mainstream-media

As the saying goes, “If it bleeds it leads.”

It has been this way across history for the dominant media of the day.

In their endless quest for the most compelling stories, natural disasters, widespread tragedy, political intrigue, criminal conduct, and the like have routinely provided the news and entertainment story fodder.

However, today’s times are unlike any that our country has previously experienced. This is mainly due to the fact that the dominant news and entertainment media have undergone a dramatic change in form and substance. The info-tainment industries have actually devolved in a way never anticipated, and unfortunately they have become an apparatus of one political party in particular, the Democratic Party.

In relation to the current reigning story, COVID-19, commonly referred to as the coronavirus, the Democrats and their news and entertainment cohorts have been working overtime to ratchet up the levels of public anxiety and alarm.

No doubt both the Democrats’ rhetoric and the media coverage of the coronavirus outbreak have grown increasingly duplicitous. Unfortunately, this is diametrically opposed to what is needed for our society to keep things in proper perspective, remain productive, and maintain a healthy outlook.

It is an axiom that when something poses a risk to the population, dissemination of accurate and objective information is key to reaching a solution. Presently, however, a kind of hysteria surrounding the coronavirus has been generated by partisan news media that have the ultimate goal of bringing down the approval ratings of President Donald Trump.

Democrats across the left-leaning spectrum and their willing media accomplices have politicized the current health-related issue to a sufficient degree that susceptible individuals have been driven into a state of uncertainty about their personal health and that of their families.

Such confusion about one’s personal circumstances may oftentimes lead to feelings of fear and apprehension that are not easily remedied even when the truth emerges.

With full knowledge that the public would likely overreact to exaggerated reporting, much of the news media have amplified the scare factor of the coronavirus story, creating a distorted perception in the minds of the public. The 24-hour cable news cycle and the social media have been working in conjunction to reinforce the misleading message.

Fear mongering by the left-leaning media is nothing new. The difference this time around, though, is that the media have abandoned all pretense of conveying factual information. They seem to have adopted a single rule with which to measure a publication’s worthiness: Will the “story” hurt President Trump? If the answer is yes, run with it.

Anything that can be blamed on the president will be.

Case in point: The U.S. newspaper of record, the New York Times, published a headline in its op-ed section that read, “Let’s call it Trump virus. If you’re feeling awful, you know who to blame.”

At a recent rally, President Trump brought up the way in which the coronavirus has been publicly discussed, highlighting a particular focus on an attempt by Democrats to massage the public psyche.

“Now, the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus…” Trump told the crowd.

The president then spoke about an individual who had suggested that the Democrats were perpetrating a hoax similar to the now-discredited Russia collusion narrative.

“One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia…they tried the impeachment hoax… they tried it over and over and they’ve been doing it since you got in…this is their new hoax.’”

When looked at in context, one should logically conclude that President Trump was referring to the Democrat and media attempts to accuse the administration of mishandling the response to the coronavirus. Rarely relying on logic, the left instead proceeded to mischaracterize his comment, taking aim directly at the word “hoax.”

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank tweeted, “Remember this moment: Trump in South Carolina just called the coronavirus a hoax.”

Ken Dilanian, a correspondent for NBC News, used his Twitter account to perpetuate the falsehood by posting, “Trump calls coronavirus Democrats’ ‘new hoax.’”

Other news outlets used distorted and misleading headlines to convey the notion that the president, shortly after creating a task force to deal with the coronavirus, called the virus itself a “hoax.”

Democrat House member Ted Lieu tweeted, “Dear @realDonaldTrump: I hope you apologize for using the term ‘new hoax’ in connection with the #coronavirus outbreak.”

Democrat presidential candidates Joe Biden, Mike Bloomberg, and recent exiter Pete Buttigieg jumped in to repeat the lie.

The truth is no action that the president would have taken to respond to the coronavirus would have satisfied Democrats or the media.

Interestingly, ignored by the same partisan figures are the hundreds of thousands of lives lost each year due to tuberculosis and AIDS, as well as the tens of thousands who die because of the flu.

Another truth nugget is that our country has an amazing track record of dealing with the risk of contagious diseases. Ebola, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) were all handled with skill and expertise and were significantly contained.

When the facts are fully known, expect the U.S. response to the coronavirus to be successful.

Watch also for the doomsday predictions given by Democrat politicians and left-leaning media to end up on top of a trash heap of failed hoaxes.

The Trump Doctrine in Real Time

trump-doctrine

The mainstream news and entertainment media are once again in a frenzy trying to figure out what just happened on the world stage and how they can make the latest Trump victory look like a loss.

The president does not expect to receive accolades for his successes from those who have hated from the start. No credit given for the safe return of hostages, no singing his praises for facilitating the meet-up between North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and South Korea’s Moon Jae-in, no congrats for making changes in trade policy that resulted in better deals for average working folks, and on and on.

But prominent among President Trump’s many accomplishments is the re-building of the United States military and the re-shaping of our foreign policy. The president’s approach to national security issues has at times been referred to as the “Trump Doctrine.” With the recent turn of events, however, it has become enshrined.

A brief explanation of terminology. The sum and substance of an administration’s foreign policy carries the label given by analysts and experts of “presidential doctrine.”

A presidential doctrine serves an important purpose; that being, to inform the public and signal to the world the manner in which foreign affairs will be conducted in accordance with a president’s worldview. It is essentially a summarization of the distinctive approach taken by the president to the nation’s relations with other nations.

The U.S. air strike that killed Iranian Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani and Kataib Hezbollah leader Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes has spelled out the Trump Doctrine in a way that the president’s detractors, and thankfully America’s enemies, did not expect.

It may have come as a surprise to Bret Stephens, who wrote a biting critique of President Trump in the New York Times back in September of 2019. In his piece, he catalogued the ever increasing attacks purportedly made by Iran against the U.S. and its allies. The attacks included six on tankers, a shoot-down of a U.S. surveillance drone, the seizure of a British ship and its crew, and strikes on oil processing facilities that halted half of the Saudi’s critical oil production.

Stephens claimed in his article that the Trump administration was “bluffing” in its condemnation of Iran and characterized the administration’s position as “weakness masked in bluster.” His critique was written prior to the time Iran committed an act of war by attacking a U.S. embassy.

Two simple phrases have been used to describe President Trump’s foreign policy: “principled realism” and “America First.” The president himself has articulated these concepts in formal speeches, press conferences, verbal statements, campaign rallies, and the like. Half the country understands exactly what he is saying and enthusiastically supports him in his efforts.

The Trump Doctrine is simple and honest in its content and end goal. It embodies the notion that our country is best served by putting the interests of our own people first.

It also brings to a screeching halt a worldview that seeks multilateralism, celebrates the demise of sovereignty, and embraces the practice of appeasement.

After Iran committed an act of war by orchestrating the attack on our embassy, the targeted limited action in which the Trump administration engaged was the correct approach in dealing with the rogue state. The administration sought real deterrence yet did not seek an escalation of military conflict. It was, and remains, the only option with which we could defend ourselves while simultaneously sending the necessary message.

There is another thread that quietly winds its way through the Trump Doctrine.

The president built his field of dreams before stepping on that escalator. With fame and fortune already in hand, unlike others before him, he views his options with clearer eyes. Unclouded by concerns that produce weakness, he projects a strength that springs from a genuine love of the country.

That’s the Trump Doctrine in real time.