Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Monday, January 30, 2017
Forum: Should Mexico Pay For The Wall? Will They?
Every week on Monday, the WoW! Staff, our community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question:Should Mexico Pay For The Wall? Will They?
The Razor : The purpose of the wall is to keep out illegals, I get that. My county is full of them and everyone suffers including the illegals themselves (from crime, exploitation, poor living conditions).
In my view there’s nothing morally wrong for a country to secure it’s own border and requiring immigrants to wait their turn.
Mexico is a failed state we share a very long border with. I don’t see how making it pay for a wall is going to make it any less a failure. I’d rather see the Trump administration take a two pronged approach:
1. Build the wall with US government funds.
2. Work with Mexico NGOs and non-corrupt government agencies (if any are left) to help the state rebuild itself.
The worse Mexico becomes the worse it’s going to be with us. It’s in our own best interest for Mexico to clean itself up and the aid we provide now will be worth the lives of our own soldiers who will have to be sent 5-10 years down the road to clean the place up like Somalia except on a huge scale.
Stately McDaniel Manor: It really comes down to whether we’re wiling to have and enforce immigration laws for Americans. If not, there’s no sense in pretending.
A necessary prerequisite is this: is the new normal unrestrained illegal immigration--and illegal drug importation--fueled and aided by the Mexican government? And if so, is America’s response to be to abandon any pretense of the sovereignty Mexico zealously enforces? Is America to follow the Obama doctrine of token enforcement of a few immigration laws in an obvious, in-your-face attempt to import enough illegals beholden to the Democrat party to eventually build a permanent Democrat voting bloc? Are Democrat-controlled cities to be allowed to flaunt federal immigration law, ignoring the rule of law and substituting instead, social justice?
If so, no wall is necessary, nor is a Border Patrol large and effective enough to have any hope of controlling the borders.
As with so much in the realm of security, we would be wise indeed to listen to the Israelis and to follow their lead. A wall, by itself, is of little use and is a waste of money, but properly manned, patrolled, and supplemented with the proper electronics and air assets, can funnel illegal immigration from a wide open fire hose deluge, to a trickle. This is not a short term project, and the political will to maintain an America-first policy over the long term depends on improved national economics credibly linked, at least in part, to enforcement of America’s immigration laws. Otherwise, when the next Democrat takes over Washington, the wall will be abandoned and easily breached, literally and figuratively.
Necessary too is a far more serious relationship with Mexico, one that does not require America to pour billions into a corrupt state that sees advantage in encouraging its poor to flood America, passing off its social welfare problems on American taxpayers. Necessary too is the choking off of the avalanche of remittances--more than $20 billion a year--that keeps Mexico’s political corruption and stagnation afloat. Taxing that money stream for awhile could easily pay for a wall and force the Mexican government and its upper class to deal with the many problems it now avoids by taking advantage of America.
There is no right for anyone to breach American borders and illegally take up residence. States--nations--that encourage the wholesale violation of American law should be treated, if not as outright enemies, at least as hostile states, and treated accordingly. At present, many Mexicans that fled the poverty and class stratification of their native country maintain an emotional attachment to Mexico, which often grows stronger the longer they are absent. Enjoying the relative bounty even the poor experience in America, they forget the misery that impelled them to risk their lives fleeing to America, and refuse to assimilate, expressing instead Mexican nationalism, often aggressively. Americans, particularly working Americans that wish no one ill, are not generally amused by such behavior.
They are particularly not amused by racist organizations like La Raza--“The Race”--that demand much, asserting those illegally in America have rights that override the rights of the native-born, and asserting a sort of virtue possessed by the ungrateful, illegal by their very presence in a nation they did not ask permission to enter, and which they call racist and hateful. They are, of course, utterly unable or unwilling to understand the inherent hypocrisy and irony in their demands of and hatred toward the nation that makes a pleasant life possible for them, and expect all the rights of citizenship, but none of the responsibilities, such as living under the rule of law.
To be sure, no man or woman of conscience can fail to pity those that illegally come here and remain, abandoning a country that cynically and willingly refuses to make the political reforms necessary to allow them to make a living. Who can hate those struggling to provide for their families? Who can begrudge the honest and hard working a chance to find a little comfort and security for those they love?
But let’s keep our priorities straight. It is Mexico--and other nations--that owes these people the opportunities and political stability their presence here damages. They are not our responsibility, and if we are to be a nation of laws, they can’t be allowed to remain.
Either we have immigration laws that benefit America and Americans, and enforce them, or we end the corrupting pretense and throw open the borders. If it is to be the former, an effective wall, with all the supporting personnel and mechanisms it requires, is a necessary beginning. If not, well, I’d rather not think about that future.
JoshuaPundit:Ah, Mexico! Just the name gives me some wonderful memories. Sad how things have changed.
To answer the question directly, yes, Mexico should pay and yes, Mexico could be made to pay, simply because they encouraged and have profitted by illegal migration. A fairer solution would be 50-50, and I think that's how it will end up. Nieto is seriously unpopular, the peso is crashing, and the Mexican economy could not handle taxes on remittances from expatriates or tariffs on its exports to the U.S. The current contest in machismo ended properly,with both Trump and Nieto agreeing not to talk about wall payment in public anymore.They'll work a deal, in part because Mexico can benefit as well, at least to a degree. And because Nieto really has no choice. Lo siento, pobrecito. Asà es como es..
The wall won't be 100% effective. No wall is. But it will significantly cut down the amount of drugs, human trafficking and illegal migration coming across the border, and that needs to happen because te lawlessness Mexicans have to live with every day is coming across the border, and that's not even mentioning the folks our Border Patrol agents refer to as OTM's - 'other than Mexicans.' Those people are coming over for entirely different reasons than jobs, and their guidebook is the Qur'an, not those easy to read comic books the Mexican government passes out by the truckload telling potential illegal migrants how to cross over easily.
The wall is a necessary evil. The United States, a wealthy First World nation finds itself with what amounts to a quasi-failed state with very little law and order just across the border, and the only way it will change is through the efforts of the Mexican people themselves. It won't happen at all if the U.S. continues to be an easy safety valve that allows the status quo to continue. The kind of change Mexico needs is going to be extremely difficult if it's even possible. But such changes only happen when things get to the point that the people themselves demand it and are willing to act. Until then, a certain level of quarantine is necessary.There are a number of other things America can do after the wall is built to help Mexico, but I will explore that in a separate article.
Don Surber: Mexico should pay for the wall, and if those costs are passed along to Americans who purchase Mexican products, so be it. Mexico has flooded the United States with cheap marijuana, cheap meth, and now cheap heroin -- as well as 5 million illegal aliens.
Foreign nations have played us for patsies. The promises of NAFTA go unfilled. Instead of reducing illegal migration from Mexico, it accelerated it.
As far as this weekend's Fake News about a Muslim ban, it strengthens support for Trump. I believe most Americans will be able to screen out the disinformation, see another weekend of freaks protesting and see that maybe Trump is not all that bad.
The Glittering Eye : Whoever pays for it, it's an ineffective policy but it's a campaign promise that formed the core of Donald Trump's campaign so he's obligated to follow through with it. If we really wanted to end illegal immigration from Mexico there's one way to do it: tough workplace enforcement.
There's no such thing as a non-porous border and the wall will only be as strong as its weakest border control agent.
Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason :While a lot of Americans supported and voted for President Trump because he promised to build a wall and that Mexico would pay for it, this issue was not why I supported him. I voted for him because he promised to appoint conservative Supreme Court justices, he is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and, well…#NeverHillary.
I’m not even sure building a wall is necessary. If the Trump Administration’s policies are going to prioritize enforcing existing laws and increase border patrol personnel, we will be doing a lot more than has been done the past few decades to curtail illegal immigration, human trafficking and the massive amount of drugs coming across our southern border. We should fund state of the art technology such as surveillance drones to watch the border and put more personnel at the heaviest trafficked areas. There may be areas where a fence or wall would be beneficial to stopping people and drugs from coming across the border and drones would help pinpoint such areas.
This should be done immediately and we should not wait for Mexico to pay for it as that might never happen. Mexico benefits too much from our porous border and really has no incentive to cooperate in this endeavor. This is a complex issue and whatever we do we need to be sure there are no negative unintended consequences as a result of our actions.
Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW! Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere. Take from me, you won't want to miss it.
Friday, January 27, 2017
Trump Freezes Obama's $221M Gift To 'Palestine'..What It means
President Trump took quick action to freeze President Obama's $221 million dollar gift to 'Palestine' courtesy of the American taxpayers.The money was a last minute payout from President Barack Hussein Obama to Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority in the last hours before President Trump's swearing in on January 20th. Apparently someone leaked this to someone in President Trump's circle, because he was about to act immediately.
Two congress members, Ed Royce of California, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Kay Granger of Texas, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee — had placed holds on it over moves the Palestinian Authority had taken to seek membership in international organizations as well as their incitement to violence against israel. Such holds are usually respected, but President Obama decided not to do so. This would have been added to the $250 million the PA received from the US government.
What happened instead is that newly sworn in President Trump froze the funds. PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah was told by the U.S. State Department that the funds were subject to an intensive review and that he should not expected the money in the immediate future.
'Aiyee! No baksheesh? What will the Rais say?'
President Obama giving more more money to Hamas and the kleptocrat dictatorship of Mahmoud Abbas than any previous U.S. President was obviously a case of ideology rather than any attempt at peace. He simply wore a mask for 8 years to try and hide it.Any president actually interested in negotiations for peace would have used the money as an incentive to Abbas to negotiate and make meaningful concessions, since unlike the U.S. relationship with Israel, America gets absolutely nothing of value from 'Palestine.'
Instead Obama gave them everything they wanted and more, including a key abstention at the UN with a resolution Secretary of State John Kerry helped write. And cynically, he gave it to them when it would no longer harm him or his party's nominee politically. His goal was obviously not peace, but Israel's surrender...from day one.
Perhaps President Trump actually showing 'Palestine' that there will be real consequences for their violence, incitement and refusal to negotiate realistically with Israel might just result in peace. We'll see.
PM Theresa May Calls For Renewing The UK's Special Relationship With America
British Prime Minister Theresa May is in America to meet with President Trump and talk over a few things, and took advantage of an invitation to address the Republican Retreat in Philadelphia. The basic theme of her speech was renewing the UK's special relationship with America. She got an extremely warm reception.
She spoke movingly about the ties between America and the UK, invoking the close relationship between President Reagan and PM Margaret Thatcher. She recognizes, thank goodness, that this is an American renewal and obviously supports it. I think PM May and President Trump will get along famously.
PM May is obviously excited over Trump's offer of a separate trade deal now that Britain is leaving the EU.
While I thought the speech was well done, the following items were sour notes:
Her remarks on the Iran deal 'preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons for at least a decade' were, shall I say, more than a tad optimistic and far fetched, since it has done nothing of the kind. Deals like this between totalitarian regimes and democratic nations seldom turn out well, and the Iran deal is no exception. Watch and see.
While she did mention 'radical Islamism' and she's obviously no fool on the matter, her remarks on the peaceful nature of ' millions of Muslims' were obsequious and obviously designed to try to placate Muslims in the UK - a significant number of whom are definitely not peaceful.The UK actually has 9 sharia courts Muslims are required to use for family law, with horrendous results for the UK's Muslim women. You'll notice her audience didn't applaud during either of those two segments.
As an aside, it was also rather cute that she's obviously not used to American audiences. We Yanks tend to applaud far more then Brits do, more vociferously and whenever we feel like it!
All in all though, a great start.
Update: Here's their joint press conference. It appears the president and the UK's PM have a lot in common and things are going along just fine so far:
Thursday, January 26, 2017
The Media Falls Right Into Trump's Trap on Voter Fraud!
This is so funny it's pathetic.They simply will never learn.
Donald Trump made a point of stating that voter fraud probably cost him the popular vote. Now I admit, my first reaction was 'why bother bringing that up now?'
And then I realized this was President Trump simply playing with the media again! It's really at the point where if President Trump says anything, the Democrats and their trained seals in the media go absolutely insane ad nauseum about his 'lies.' Even after they've been outed and made fools of time and again, it's so reflexive they keep doing it anyway.
Watch as they attack Sean Spicer and fall right into the trap:
"Wouldn't you want to investigate a scandal of those proportions? Why wouldn't you want to investigate this?"
Your wish is President Trump's command, madame!
President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he will launch a ‘major’ investigation to look into voter fraud in the country.
“I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and….even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time),” the president tweeted Wednesday morning.
“Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!”
The Democrats of course, tried quickly to head this off on fake news media, claiming that just investigating voter fraud will somehow lead to 'voter suppression. But sorry boys, too late. If the Democrat media insists on an investigation, President Trump is happy to oblige. How can they possibly complain about and investigation they demanded? And when that DOJ investigation finds voter fraud (and believe me, it will) how can they complain about actions congress takes to "strengthen up voting procedures?"
The Democrats know very well that while it might not be 2-3 million, there's a fair amount of voter fraud that they depend on to win close elections.
One Democrat who knows it is Alan Schulkin, the Commissioner of the Board of Election of New York City, filmed here on a hidden camera by James O'Keefe's Project Veritas:
And that's just in New York City.
As I pointed out here, there no real telling just how many votes Donald Trump actually got:
Remember Jill Stein's Hillary Clinton backed recount attempt? Originally, it was ordered in the State of Michigan by U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith, an Obama appointee even though Stein had no standing since there was no way a recount would have affected her. She proceeded to file suit in two other states Trump won, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And then suddenly, the whole scam ground to a halt, with Goldsmith hurriedly reversing himself.
That happened after Trump started gaining votes in all three states...and clear evidence of voter fraud was found in Wayne County affecting over 37% of the precincts in Detroit showing more votes than there were registered voters,which is why Judge Goldsmith was happy to reverse himself and let sleeping dogs lie. Similar evidence was found in Wisconsin (Dane County) and Philadelphia, but since recounts were never really started in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, we have no clue as to how many votes Trump may have actually gotten.
There was also evidence of voter fraud in Clark County (Las Vegas)Nevada, where most of the states illegal migrants live. Trump lost Nevada by only 26,434 votes, but naturally, we'll never know if he actually did.
California,with the largest population of illegal migrants in America has significant voter fraud and has for some time. Illegal migrants can easily get a driver's licenses with only a matricula consular card from Mexican consulates, which don't check details too closely, especially if you give the clerk a little something for his trouble. Getting a license or registering a vehicle automatically registers you to vote, and there are no voter ID laws in California...the poll worker simply asks you name, finds you on the list and gives you your ballot. The Democrat ruled state rarely purges its registration rolls for move aways or dead people, and also pushes note by mail and absentee ballots rigorously. My late mother passed away in 2015,but she got her absentee ballot for 2016, mailed to her at a house I own where she used to live.
Depending on results? Oh I think they'll find some results. maybe not two or three million, but enough to justify laws to "strengthen up voting procedures."
And that isn't going to turn out well for the Democrats, no, not st all.
Which if course is exactly what the President wants and had planned all along.
Monday, January 23, 2017
Yes, The Media Deliberately Misrepresented The Crowd Size At The Inaugural
The mainstream news media made headlines over the weekend out of what they labeled as a sub par crowd size at the inaugural. Their meme, of course, is that Trump is illegitimate, unpopular and really shouldn't be president.
The New York Times led the charge, with most of the media using this photo to compare the turnout for Barack Obama's 2009 inauguration with Trump's:
Now, given the rain and the threats of riots and violence by the Left I would have expected a lower turnout for President Trump. Barack Hussein Obama's inauguration certainly didn't have to cope with those particular obstructions.
But as it turns out, the picture of Trump's inauguration was taken very early, at 9:24 AM local time.
Fox New's reporter Brit Hume was among many who noticed that the turnout increased substantially later on, especially when President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence were sworn in.
@brithume This photo shows Trump speaking at Inauguration with crowd going down to Washington Monument. @seanspicer
The New York Times led the charge, with most of the media using this photo to compare the turnout for Barack Obama's 2009 inauguration with Trump's:
Now, given the rain and the threats of riots and violence by the Left I would have expected a lower turnout for President Trump. Barack Hussein Obama's inauguration certainly didn't have to cope with those particular obstructions.
But as it turns out, the picture of Trump's inauguration was taken very early, at 9:24 AM local time.
Fox New's reporter Brit Hume was among many who noticed that the turnout increased substantially later on, especially when President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence were sworn in.
Brit Hume
Brit Hume Retweeted NYT Politics
I was in the building at the bottom of picture on right yesterday. Shot was taken early, area was considerably fuller by time of speech.
Brit Hume added,
Forum: What Did You Think Of Trumps' Inauguration?
Every week on Monday, the WoW! Magazine community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: What Did You Think Of Trumps' Inauguration?
Don Surber: The speech was the best inauguration speech in my life -- unless Ike's 1957 speech was better (I was 3 at the time). Never thought anyone would top JFK's, which outlines conservative values well. No doubt there was more polish in Reagan's two inaugurals and JFK's, but Trump's speech had heart, as he must bring a divided nation together.
But the rest of the inauguration is a celebration for the winners. I am the opposite of a party animal. This is a drug-free, smoke-free, alcohol-free White House that enjoys parties.
Trump and his family looked good, especially the women. Melania went with Reem Acra the first night, and Ralph Lauren for Inauguration Day. Ivanka and her mini-me, Tiffany, are also models, as were their respective mothers.
Lee Greenwood's rendition of "God Bless The USA" still resonates in West Virginia 35 years later. The rest of the entertainers were of little interest to me.
Trump was Bill Clinton's age when JFK became president. He inspired both. But in different ways. Clinton saw the perks. Trump heard the words: Ask not what your country can do for you...
The Razor :I usually don’t watch these things but I did this time.
Here’s what I noticed:
1. He used the pronouns “we” and “you” much more than “I”. This is classic Dale Carnegie How to Win Friends and Influence People. Politicians have become so self-absorbed that it’s almost impossible to grasp the importance of these relatively simple rhetorical tactics. I haven’t seen them applied at this level in years.
2. He spoke to his base – the voters in rural America and former steel towns who have been completely ignored by politicians since the 1980s. They put him in office and he’s girding to be their champion. For their sake I hope he will be, and so far I don’t have any reason to doubt his intent.
3. His speech was short and succinct – more Carnegie. He’s at heart a salesman who knows the best pitch is always the shortest.
4. He’s an alpha male. That podium must have reeked of testosterone after he spoke because he made it clear that he’s #1. If he had been a chimp he’d have pounded on the podium with his hands and feet and panthooted. Anyone who thinks he’s going to kiss Putin’s ass including maybe Putin himself underestimate him.
5. The Rabbi’s benediction was full of references to Jerusalem. I hope his words burned in Obama’s heart but that narcissist probably wasn’t even listening.
Rob Miller, JoshuaPundit: I pretty much said what I had to say about President Trump's speech here. It was, for the most part, the kind of speech I expected, simply because our 45th president is no fool. He understands this is not a typical inauguration, not a typical presidency. Yes, he reached out for unity, but he knows the Left has declared war on him and everyone who supports him. This is a revolution, and Trump's speech was in essence, a declaration of independence. The Left and the Elites understand that. Let no one think the war's over and this, our second American revolution is a done deal. It's our part to support this revolution and help where we can, something else the speech called for if you read between the lines.
How wonderful the actual speech was can be judged by the Left's reaction. One thing I've always liked about President Trump's speeches is that they (censoring myself here!)drive all the right people insane. This one did that in spades. I particularly loved how Trump first complimented President Obama for his gracious help in the transition (one of the biggest lies the Donald has likely ever told) and then ripped apart, without naming names, the inept and corrupt policies that have brought America to its current state.
One other special thing Trump did in his speech was to acknowledge that that the protection and prosperity of the United States of America depends not just on the actions of men, but on the divine providence of G-d. If you consider our history, our very founding,as far as I'm concerned truer words were never spoken. And that brought to mind another, long ago inaugural and an unlikely president who acknowledged exactly the same thing.
We have a chance to redeem our Beloved Republic and by G-d's grace, a real leader. Let us all do what we can to bring that about.
Mike McDanie, Stately McDaniel Manor :It’s coincidental, but on Inauguration Day, I was teaching my 11th grade classes Patrick Henry’s historic Speech in the Virginia Convention. Among the points I made was Henry’s speech was brief, around seven minutes, but changed the world. So too--brief--was the Gettysburg Address, lasting only a fraction of the time of Henry’s speech.
It’s little known Lincoln wasn’t the featured speaker at Gettysburg. Instead, a man known at the time as the finest speaker in America* headlined--Mr. Lincoln was included only as a matter of decorum--and he spoke for more than two hours. No one remembers his name, or a word he said. But the beautiful and deeply heartfelt words written by Honest Abe, a simple, honorable and eloquent man, will live as long as humanity lives.
Am I saying President Trump’s speech was akin to these masterworks? No, but it was more than good enough, and it was the right speech at the right time. Of course, the Left hated and reviled it and him. They’ve had a long, running head start on that. Interestingly, it lasted less than 20 minutes, and Mr. Trump, as I observed in Man At Work did his ceremonial duties and then went right to work. Actually, the speech was his work, and it was exactly what America elected him to say:
“Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another, or from one party to another -- but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.”
That’s why we elected him.
“For too long, a small group in our nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished -- but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered -- but the jobs left, and the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes -- starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.”
That’s what we’ve been waiting for eight long years to hear. These are not eloquent words, nor are they the utterly empty, “soaring” rhetoric of Barack Obama, platitudes which, once actually read and considered, said little and meant less.
Extraordinary too is the fact Mr. Trump’s speech was not at all self-referential. Gone was Mr. Obama’s convention of referring to himself in virtually every sentence. These are the only instances of “I” evident in the speech:
“The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans.”
And:
“I will fight for you with every breath in my body -- and I will never, ever let you down."
Perhaps we can allow him those, on this particular occasion.
The speech appealed to racial unity and national unity. It truly left no one behind, and if Mr. Trump is able to deliver, even somewhat, on improvement in the inner cities--the Dems that control them will do all they can to sabotage him, even though so doing will plunge their constituents into more misery--he will have done more for poor, urban black Americans than Democrats have done in a century. As Mr. Trump said near the end of the speech:
“So to all Americans, in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, and from ocean to ocean, hear these words:
You will never be ignored again.
Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.”
I believe him.
*(The headliner at Gettysburg was Edward Everett.)
Dave Schuler, The Glittering Eye: I didn't listen to the speech but I did read it. I thought it was a non-partisan broadside against the political establishment. As such reactions to it are a pretty good barometer of how committed to the political establishment and the status quo you are.
Bookworm Room:I didn't watch the festivities at all, although I did enjoy the picture of the lovely Ivanka in a dazzling ballgown:
Instead, I limited myself to watching the moment that Trump and Pence were sworn in and I listened to Trump's speech. Both made me happy.
I thought the speech was masterful. It represented a return to founding principles contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Lincoln summarized the core principle in his Gettysburg Address: Unlike all other nations, now or in the past, America is "government of the people, by the people, for the people."
Trump opened by reminding the people that government has become a self-serving entity that has no regard for the people's needs -- and their needs are great. Trump promised to return government to the people: to make it smaller and more user-friendly, rather than a vast behemoth that serves a narrow Blue segment in Washington, D.C., and America's more expensive enclaves.
The speech also put America first in a way that we should all understand. "America First" does not mean nationalistic world conquest. In fact, when America is coming first, it means the opposite.
Since WWII, America has born the responsibility for caring for the rest of the world. It willingly shouldered that burden, both because it was the last intact First World country standing after WWII and because it saw its responsibilities as part of its own battle against communism in the Cold War.
Sadly, in exchange for America's blood and money, the rest of the world has responded with insults and attacks. Moreover, now that the Cold War has officially ended and America is engaged in a hot war with radical Islam, the rest of the world -- except for Israel -- is not only insulting America, it's routinely aiding and abetting this existential enemy. Even worse, for the last eight years, our own president provided aid and succor to anti-American forces through the world.
It is time, therefore, for America, at least temporarily, to stop being the world's banker, policeman, and nanny. America has exhausted its financial resources and good will on a singularly ungrateful world. America needs to see to its own needs. That is, it really must put itself first if it is to survive. Once America has regrouped -- strengthened its economy, secured its borders, and increased its national security, including helping its few stalwart allies around the world -- then, and only then, can it see whether its future wealth and security will benefit from venturing forth once again into the greater world.
One last thing: For all the accessible vocabulary and sentence structure -- that is, this was not an academically complex and erudite speech -- it's worth noting that Trump managed to pack an amazing number of important principles into those 20 minutes. As I learned long ago reading Supreme Court opinions, the best ideas, principles, laws, and facts are the ones that can be expressed in the most straightforward terms. When a writer or speaker gets very complicated and starts spinning vast webs of words, that person is outright lying to you or at least hoping you'll miss various sins of omission.
Puma By Design: The sweetest words ever spoken (or that I’ve heard in decades):
We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all of our people.
Together, we will determine the course of America and the world for years to come.
We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done…
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.
January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.
The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer…”--President Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States Inaugural Speech.
Every time I hear or read these words, I exhale:
“The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans.”
Beautiful. Finally, Communism is forced to the back of the bus and hopefully in time eliminated, at least on our American shores.
I refuse to listen to media propagandists because no matter what our President says or what he does will satisfy them and their globalist masters.
Upon scanning my twitter and personal Facebook feed, fascist illiterate voters have declared war on the nation. Racists are levying allegations of racism while spewing hateful, curse-ridden rants, repeating propaganda full of historical inaccuracies.
Example: A family member (college age) shared a rant on Facebook from a classmate attacking white people this morning.
Little Miss Snowflake was lambasting Caucasians for alleged double standards (I kid you not) in complaining about violent anti-tests which little miss snowflake likened to, i.e., white people throwing tea overboard in protest of a tyrannical ruling government while at the same time enslaving Black people?
It is at this point that I stopped reading little miss Black Lives Matter snowflake’s rant which besides its historical inaccuracies was laced with expletives, spelling and grammatical errors. Did I mention that this snowflake is in her second semester of college?
I have decided to pass up a niece’s wedding this spring because family or not, I do not want to be around wannabe Black Lives Matter idiots.
That being said, I hope that President Trump stands his ground when it comes to dealing with these domestic terrorists. Arrest. Detain. Convict. Sentence. Lock them up! Oh yes and protect our borders.
Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : The inauguration of our 45th president of the United States was simultaneously a rewarding culmination of the work we conservatives have done for years attempting to return our government to the people, but also a reminder of the massive job ahead for President Trump. His inaugural address was spot on and well received by the people who supported him. He promised to return our government to the people. We must make sure he keeps his promise.
The entire Trump family looked elegant and composed and I marveled at the energy maintained throughout a very long day. The powder blue coat our new first lady wore during the inauguration and the white gown she wore for the balls were exquisite and tasteful, a welcome change after eight years of what I can only describe as Michelle Obama’s “odd” fashion sense. It will be interesting to see how the media reacts to her fashion selections over the next four to eight years.
Many in the main stream media said Trump’s inaugural address was dark. I disagree. What was dark was President Obama promising the “fundamental transformation of America.” What was dark was these past eight years when he nearly succeeded. With a collective sigh of relief we can hope our country, under the leadership of President Trump, will be restored to a position of strength and respect in the world.
One disappointment was Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s hastily called press conference on Saturday. We know the press will be attacking and picking apart everything President Trump says or does. If he is going to pick fights with the media he better make sure his facts are correct. His response to the media’s comments about the size of the attendance at the inaugural ceremony seemed petty and inconsequential. It would be wise to be selective about what attacks from the media he chooses to respond to and save such responses for more important matters.
Hopefully the cabinet positions will be filled quickly and President Trump can begin to work through the many challenges facing him domestically and internationally.
Well, there you have it!
Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW! Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere. Take from me, you won't want to miss it.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
CIA Agents Cheer Trump - 'Feud' Is Just Another Fake News Story
President Trump's very first stop on his first full day in office was at CIA headquarters, where a capacity crowd of 400 agents, analysts and other personnel were there to here him speak. Remember, According to the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and other fake news purveyors, the CIA rank and file hates the new president like poison.
So here we have VP Mike Pence and President Donald Trump talking to them directly, telling them about their new Chief Mike Pompeo, commending them and letting them know that they can expect full backing in doing that vital job they do for the American people from him, as only Donald Trump can. As the CIA Assistant Director who introduced him remarked they could only accommodate 400 people, and there were many more who wanted to come to hear Trump's remarks. This is a new chapter for our intelligence services.
This was simply a commanding general rallying the troops, letting them know how important they were and the great things they were going to accomplish together. And they loved every minute of it.
Needless to say, outgoing CIA head John Brennan (salaam aleikum!) was given a platform to try and rip Trump's speech apart by the usual suspects. We can only imagine how poorly and PC the CIA was run with him in charge. The the CIA's rank and file cheering a new change in command like this tells us how bad it really was and how frustrating for them it must have been.
The new broom sweeps clean indeed..
Friday, January 20, 2017
Trump's Inauguration - "This Is Your Country"
Today, Donald John Trump took the oath of office as the 45th President of the United States.
His inaugural address was very different than the kind we have come to expect lately. It was much like the man himself - plainspoken and to the point, delivered not in the cadences of Harvard or Yale but in the blue collar accents of Queens.
For one thing, unlike his predecessor, the word 'I' was mostly absent. This was a speech to the American people and it was deliberately made inclusive, with the focus on 'we' and the all-inclusive 'you.':
"We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and restore its promise for all of our people.
Together, we will determine the course of America and the world for many, many years to come. We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done."
After a few salutations to the ex-presidents assembled and a special thanks to President Obama and Michele Obama "for their gracious aid throughout this transition" he then proceeded to rip apart the policies of the last quarter century and in particular the last eight years. No names mentioned or personal attacks, just the unadorned truth:
"Today's ceremony, however, has a very special meaning because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people.
For too long, a small group in our nation's capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have bore the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered but the jobs left and the factories closed."
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes starting right here and right now, because this moment is your moment.
It belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America.
This is your day.
This is your celebration.
And this, the United States of America, is your country."
His message was simple. Things are going to change, and from now on, the country's business will be conducted with the benefit of the American people as the first priority.
He also said the words 'radical Islamic terrorism,' pledging to eradicate it. And he did something else that recalled another inaugural long, long ago...that the protection and prosperity of the United States of America depends not just on the actions of men, but on the divine providence of G-d.
That alone will drive the Left even crazier than they already are. They will harshly criticize it, ridicule it and even cook up some polls to show how much the American people hated this speech and the man who made it. But most Americans are going to understand it as a harbinger of a new era. As President Trump said today, January 20th, 2017 will be remembered at the day the American people again took control of their government. The elites still don't understand, most of them,that this wasn't so much an election as a relatively bloodless revolution.
The president who made that earlier inaugural address understood, as does President Trump that he was presiding over a time of revolutionary change, a time of national challenge. Both of them made a pledge before the American people to lead them in meeting that challenge.
This is a new day and anew era in our beloved Republic's history. Our challenge now is to redeem what our Forefathers suffered and bled to preserve for us. Will we meet it? Well, the way at least is clear and the challenges named. President Trump spelled that out today for us.
With G-d's help, we will.
Selah.
Monday, January 16, 2017
The Paris ' Peace Conference' Turns Into A Farce
Pro -Israel protesters outside Paris Conference
The Paris peace conference designed to be another slap at Israel turned into a farce devoid of meaning. It certainly didn't have the kick Barack Obama and John Kerry intended.
Instead of strengthening the insidious UNSC 2334, it actually buried it and made it ridiculous.
UNSC 2334, as biased as it was, had reiterated the Security Council’s:
“vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,”
The final Paris communique threw away this “two democratic states solution” and changed it to:
“that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace.”
They eliminated 'democratic' 9 times in the final communique. This seems self-evident because neither the Palestinian Authority or Hamasistan are democratic in the least, but the Paris communique not accepting the terms of the “two-state solution” proposed by the Security Council gives the lie to the whole enterprise and takes the mask off, weakening 2334's clout.
It also reaffirmed that the only way to any settlement was direct negotiations between the parties rather than a UN diktat, which 2334 most assuredly did not do.
There's also no followup, and no new demands of Israel.
The Paris statement did praise Saudi Arabia's 2002 Arab Peace Initiative as "a comprehensive framework for the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, thus contributing to regional peace and security." That's to be expected. But since it was a diktat that mimics 2334 in re-dividing Jerusalem and gifting all of Judea and Samaria to 'Palestine' and the Israelis will never abide by that anyway, it's meaningless...just like the entire conference.
Surprisingly, Britain refused to ratify the Paris statement, thus blocking the EU from signing on to it. Australia refused as well, as did most of the Eastern European EU members.
And even France's lame duck president Hollande changed his tune, saying that only negotiations between the two parties would result in peace, which 'cannot be dictated.'
What changed things? In part at least, Donald Trump:
In a recent interview with Bild and the Times of London, Trump said he hoped the UK would veto any anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council.
“The Brits read what Trump said and implemented it immediately,” an unnamed European diplomat who attended Monday’s EU meeting told Haaretz.
Quite simply, Trump explained that Obama was on his way out in a week or so, and there was a new sheriff in town. It's no coincidence that British PM Theresa May is now exulting over offers of new trade deals outside the EU with America.
The Australians and the most of the Eastern European countries were always on board with Israel anyway. Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop was fairly open about saying that the Turnball government didn't think much of 2334 and even less of the Paris communique:
Without specifically mentioning the conference's endorsement of resolution 2334, Ms Bishop noted the Coalition did not support "one-sided resolutions targeting Israel".
"The most important priority must be a resumption of direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians for a two-state solution as soon as possible," she said.
Australia became one of the few countries other than Israel to condemn the New Zealand-sponsored resolution 2334, with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull labeling it "one-sided" and "deeply unsettling".
U,S, Secretary of State John Kerry phoned Israeli PM Netanyahu and promised that the U.S. would not support any further UN action at tomorrow's UN Security Council Meeting, to which Netanyahu reportedly replied that Israel has already suffered enough damage thanks to the U.S. abstention on 2334.
It's the part about Kerry promising something is what has me concerned...stay tuned.
UPDATE: The UNSC meeting turned out to be nothing. Except for Israel's UN ambassador Danny Danon ripping the UN for encouraging (encouraging? try financing amd abetting) Palestinian terrorism and intransigence.
Trending On WoW! Magazine
The Little Rascals Of Government Want Your 401K Account
John Lewis Disgraces Himself And His Own Past – Again
CAIR Demands Trump Drop Reverend Franklin Graham from Inaugural Prayers
BREAKING! Project Veritas Undercover Op Outs Plans To Terrorize Inaugural
Forum: Was Trump’s Confronting CNN Publicly A Positive Or A Negative?
The further indoctrination of our kids
Talent--less
Remembering Martin Luther King, Jr.
Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner reintroduces bill to dissolve ATF
The Golden Age of Donald Trump Begins One Week from Today!
Trump And Cabinet: Uneducated
Rand Paul Want to Give the Liberals an Obamacare Replacement Target to Attack? | Virginia Right!
Venezuela’s new VP’s Hezbollah connection
BREAKING! Project Veritas Undercover Op Outs Plans To Terrorize Inaugural
James O'Keefe and his team have gone public with the results of their undercover investigation of a group known as 'the DC Anti-fascist Coalition,' an alliance of radical Leftist groups who have come together and have made concrete plans to disrupt the Trump inauguration and terrorize the attendees. These are not people simple planning a protest or some street theater. These are violent, serious people, And listening to them, it's obvious they have the expertise to carry their plans for violence off.This video is part one:
John Lewis Disgraces Himself And His Own Heroic Past - Again
Rep John Lewis (D-GA) has been a busy man this week.
First off, he, along with Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) went ahead and slandered President Elect Trump's Attorney General pick Jeff Sessions as a ra-aaa-acist without a shred of proof. Now, Jeff Sessions is the man who destroyed the KKK in Alabama among his other accomplishments, but so what? After all, he's a Republican, a southerner and a Trump nominee isn't he? Isn't that enough?
Apparently it isn't enough, not any more, since Jeff Sessions is a cinch to get through his Judiciary committee hearings and become the first honest Attorney General we've had in 8 years.
Cory Booker, of course was just looking to raise his profile a little bit, looking ahead perhaps to 2020. But John Lewis appears to have something of a different agenda. He just went public calling Donald Trump's presidency "illegitimate' on NBC:
Of course the media went wild with this, because John Lewis is a 'civil rights icon' after all, and thus his moral authority is unquestionable,right? So he's allowed to air wild conspiracy theories without a smidgen of evidence. Because of course, the Democrat media media has a vested interest in branding Trump's presidency as illegitimate too.
But you have to wonder. Isn't the Democratic party use of voter fraud, rigging the primaries, having one of their operatives in CNN's employ feeding debate questions to their candidate and colluding with corrupt elements in the media a conspiracy? Wasn't all that just a secret plan to obtain a desired result by any means necessary? Or at least it was secret until WikiLeaks made it public.
President Elect Trump responded, as he tends to do, tweeting: "Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results. All talk, talk, talk - no action or results. Sad!"**
Trump later tweeted: "Congressman John Lewis should finally focus on the burning and crime infested inner-cities of the U.S. I can use all the help I can get!"
He isn't going to get that from the likes of John Lewis. Like his fellow prog-facists, Lewis wants Trump's presidency to fail and will do everything in his power to obstruct it and keep blacks on the Democrat Plantation.
Does anyone remember the last time Rep. John Lewis made national headlines?
This was during the Tea Party protests in Washington over ObamaCare being shoved through, ignoring all Senate and House rules with the Republicans literally locked out of the room. That's John Lewis next to then Speaker Pelosi, with his hand on the gavel. He was there in that prominent position for a specific reason, as we'll see.
They walked through the crowds of protesters with the media in tow, deliberately hoping to provoke a confrontation.
Afterwards, Lewis and Rep. Andre Carson claimed they were abused with 'racial epithets' repeatedly during their little stroll, and the media made it headline news for weeks. After all,John Lewis, civil rights icon. Ra-aaa-acism!
Andrew Breitbart (Z'L) who was at the Tea Party protests offered $100,000 to anyone who could come up with a video or audio clip of anyone calling Lewis or Carson racial epithets. Aside from the heavy media presence (they were so hoping for an incident) there were a large number of private individuals videotaping the event. There's literally no way that anyone calling either congressman racial epithets could have gone unrecorded.
Andrew Breitbart's money was never paid out, for the simple reason that nothing like that occurred. After pushing the story on the front pages for weeks, even the New York Times finally printed a grudging retraction along the lines of Dan Rather's 'false but accurate' defense - in the back of the paper, underneath a totally unrelated story.
John Lewis simply lied about it, knowingly and with specific tactics in mind. But, you know, civil rights icon and all, so no one asked him to retract anything.
He's using exactly the same tactics here, calling Jeff Sessions a racist and Trump's presidency 'illegitimate.' And the media are running with it because it matches their agenda.And this isn't new. John Lewis has a history of pulling this crap.Aside from the above instances:
In 2008 he accused John McCain and Sarah Palin of racism in a widely reported speech: “Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division.George Wallace* never threw a bomb … but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans … four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama."
In 2012, Lewis gave a lurid speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina where he recounted the violence of the 1960's and accused the republicans of wanting to bring back Jim Crow: “I’ve seen this before, I lived this before. We were met by an angry mob that beat us and left us lying in a pool of blood. Brothers and sisters, do you want to go back? Or do you want to keep America moving forward?”
And in an interview during the 2016 election, he called Donald Trump a racist, comparing him with George Wallace: “I’ve been around a while and Trump reminds me so much of a lot of the things that George Wallace said and did … Sometimes I feel like I am reliving part of my past. I heard it so much growing up in the South…I heard it so much during the days of the civil rights movement."
In a speech to the House on March 21, 1995, John Lewis openly compared the Republicans with the Nazis, paraphrasing Pastor Niemoller's famous quote to denounce the Contract With America:
“They came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews … trade unionists … Catholics … Protestants…” Then Lewis said grimly: “Read the Republican contract. They are coming for the children. They are coming for the poor. They are coming for the sick, the elderly, and the disabled.”
Another meme the media are pushing about John Lewis in an effort to sell his latest horse manure is that he's always willing to work with people, that he's rather non-partisan, a reasonable person.
But when you look at his history, the exact opposite is true. He's hyper-partisan with radical, far Left politics and a racialist who uses events of half a century ago as a political weapon to push that agenda.
In congress,John Lewis is a member of both the Congressional Black Caucus and the far Left progressive Caucus in the House.
When the Marxist Sandinista government of Nicaragua decided to break the cease fire agreement it had with the Contras in 1989, the House of Representatives voted 379-29 in favor of a resolution deploring the Sandinistas' actions. Lewis was one of the 29 Democrats who opposed the resolution.
That actually fits in with a number of associations John Lewis has had over the years with a surprising number of socialist and even communist activists and organizations. A search reveals quite a bit.
When the House of Representatives voted 345-75 to defund the corrupt 'community organization' ACORN in September 2009, Lewis was one of the 75—all Democrats—who voted to continue funding Acorn.
He's also been a consistent opponent of any defunding of Planned Parenthood, even after it surfaced that they were bartering baby parts.
John Lewis has always been an open borders advocate. He not only supported the DREAM Act, but in July 2014, after thousands of (mostly unaccompanied) Central American minors had crossed the southern U.S. border illegally since October of the previous year, Lewis tweeted a message in favor of open borders: “We are all connected. We can't just build a wall or a fence and say no more. This is America. Our doors are open.”
I wonder how black Americans, struggling with the high cost of housing, overloaded healthcare facilities, high unemployment and reduced wages due to illegal migration and open borders feel about that? They live with it. John Lewis doesn't.
John Lewis's attitude towards race relations can be ascertained by this account of his speech at the 50th reunion of his old group SNCC at Shaw University on April 17, 2010, where he characterized the election of President Obama as "down payment" and when he said "we need to organize and push forward to cash in on that down payment."
You see, to John Lewis and people that think like him, there is no end to this and never will be...because to acknowledge that would take away a major ideological weapon from their arsenal. Dr. King would not have approved.
There's no doubt that John Lewis acted with bravery fifty years ago at the Edmund Pettus Bridge and on other occasions.That merits respect. But it's also true that he's been living off those events to demonize anyone opposing his radical agenda. And that merits no respect at all.
As far as I'm concerned, his race card's overdrawn and no longer valid.
Enough.
*George Wallace, Democrat
** As a side note, in fairness I have to say I have fond memories of Atlanta. Lewis's district includes some fairly ritzy areas like Buckhead and the neighborhoods around Piedmont Park among others. And the downtown area wasn't too shabby at all either. Or at least it wasn't the last time I was there, which admittedly was some time ago.
On the other hand, Atlanta has largely become yet another city run by black Democrats since then (Georgia went for Trump, Atlanta definitely did not), the demographics of the area in question have changed considerably and based on the comments section reaction from locals in this article at my former platform, the fairly left-leaning Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Trump's description of rep. Lewis's district may have some justification.
Forum: Was Trump's Confronting CNN Publicly A Positive Or A Negative?
Every week on Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: Was Trump's Confronting CNN Publicly A Positive Or A Negative?
Don Surber: Answer: This is a positive.No one in America plays the press better than The Donald. Liz Smith -- the doyenne of the gossip queens of New York -- devoted an entire chapter to him in her autobiography. If you want to know The Donald, read it.
Attacking CNN works because 1.) CNN tried to frame him as a puppet of Putin putting out a quadruple bylined story without a reaction from his camp. If you cannot fight for yourself, you deserve to lose.
2) CNN is the least liked cable network with favorables below Trump's.
3.) He did not use the incident to evade answering the question, but rather to punctuate his response. He denied it and then banned (without removing) said reporter.
4.) He relished putting Jim Acosta down.
Eventually the press may catch on. The incessant attacks on his person will not work. No one in the press has the credibility with Trump's supporters needed to bring him down. I suggest they give him a honeymoon and see what happens.
Stately McDaniel Manor: President-Elect Trump’s public confrontation of CNN was exactly the right thing to do. The Lamestream Media, the Democrat Party, the academy and the other usual suspects are engaged in an unprecedented war against Mr. Trump, and if allowed free reign, their irrational hatred and rage will go far beyond damaging Mr. Trump and will do serious damage to America.
Mr. Trump was right in calling out CNN reporter Jim Acosta (talk about an ironically appropriate name), and should have had him thrown out. Acosta should be permanently banned from any Trump event and from the White House. Even if Acosta does not respect Mr. Trump--and it’s clear that’s the case, or he was raised by wolves--he and every reporter must give due deference to the office Mr. Trump holds. There is no excuse to do otherwise.
Whenever any reporter behaves inappropriately, give them the boot and ban them, period, no exceptions, no reprieves, no apologies accepted. These are people who have declared war on Mr. Trump. They don’t get to decide who is president or how to treat the person holding the office. They are beyond the pale and deserve no consideration. CNN too should have no consideration, and should be banned from all Trump events and the White House.
It’s important that Mr. Trump set the ground rules even before he takes the oath of office. The thinking, civilized public is on his side and very much against the lies and excesses of the media. If Mr. Trump stands firm, the media will have the choice of becoming more and more marginalized, or of working to regain a modicum of the public’s trust. In any case, Twitter is Mr. Trump’s, and the American people’s best friend, and he should use it, carefully, to bypass the media. Mr. Trump has a unique opportunity to strike a blow for all Americans against an arrogant, corrupt, and Leftist media. He should take careful, measured advantage of it.
Mr. Trump should also sue Buzzfeed and CNN for their libelous conduct. Normally, it’s difficult for public figures to recover damages in such cases, but when actual malice is involved--as it surely is--and when Buzzfeed and CNN knew the material they were publishing to be false, that’s another story. Mr. Trump should sue them into oblivion and give the money to Fox News, or to an appropriate non-profit like FIRE that works to uphold the First Amendment and that behaves honorably.
If Mr. Trump does as I suggest, the media will wail, gnash their teeth and rend their garments. They’ll claim Mr. Trump is destroying the First Amendment and Democracy! They’ll call him a Nazi! They’ll…what’s that you say? They’re already doing all of that? They’ve been doing it for more than a year? Why, so they have!
I guess Mr. Trump really doesn’t have anything to lose, does he?
JoshuaPundit: Ah well, I guess everyone enjoyed seeing a smarmy CNN reporter put in his place. I heard several people refer to it as another Christmas present.It worked for several reasons. Acosta was being rude, attempting to shout over another reporter's question,the Donald warned him twice and then told him he wasn't going to give him a question saying, "You are fake news" to wild applause. Which of course, they are. Trump merely underlined it.
There are a couple of interesting things I noticed though. First that PEOTUS Trump also went out of his way to throw the rest of the media a bone. In his remarks, he thanked them for their professionalism in not publishing an obviously fake story that had no proof whatsoever behind it including, in Trump's words, "those of you who haven't been so fair to me in the past. You've all risen a bit in my estimation."
This was quite important. Trump was letting the media know that if they're reasonably fair to him, he'll help them get their jobs done. If they act like CNN, they'll be treated like CNN because he isn't afraid of them. He was, in effect, setting rules and guidelines. Call it puppy training, courtesy of The Donald.
One interesting response on the media's part is that the whole meme Obama and his sycophants came up with, 'fake news' is now being dropped by many of them like a hot potato. They realize that media on the Right simply turned the tables on them..partly because most of the American people no longer trust the main stream outlets' credibility any more, especially after watching CNN wind up with egg on its face.They realize that 'fake news' can just as easily be applied to them.
This may turn out, believe it or not, to be the start of something positive.
Puma By Design : I view president-elect, Trump’s take down of CNN as a positive. For decades, the mainstream media has shamefully lambasted Republicans while giving Progressives a pass.
Even when I was still a Democrat, I found myself wondering, “What is wrong with the Republican Party? Why do they take that kind of treatment? Stand up for yourselves! Fight back, dummies!”
Up until the Tea Party, many of the old-school Republicans who did respond failed miserably. Adding to that, the mainstream media over the past eight years, gushed shamelessly over Barack Obama like a smitten 14-year-old school girl (no offense to school girls).
Enter 2015/2016 and Donald Trump: Throughout the presidential campaign, media sock puppets gave Hillary Clinton who campaigned on a part-time basis and took weekends off a pass. I don’t recall one news outlet reporting that Clinton who rarely took interviews was playing to empty halls. It was frustrating to watch them fawn over an illusion while declaring Crooked Hillary the victor long before the election.
Throughout Trump and his supporters came under attack while Clinton was given high praise for labeling Trump supporters the alt-right and a basket of deplorables.
CNN until this day has failed to give the victor aka our president-elect the respect Trump has justifiably earned and deserves.
To Trump’s credit, it’s rather refreshing to see a Republican, finally, stand up to the mainstream media and not feel guilty about doing so.
CNN, peers and the grievance industry has been allowed to pedal their filthy propaganda to silence Republicans and other voices of opposition for far too long. They are creatures of habit which is why I suspect that they believe Trump’s take down of Jim Acosta was an anomaly. What fools they are.
Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : Trump’s calling out CNN reporter Jim Acosta during a press conference was a wakeup call to those in the mainstream media. Those of us who have followed the media are painfully aware of the bias in their reporting. It’s the reason we have taken to social media to report on the news and cover the stories they either refuse to report at all or report through a liberal lens.
This recent report was offered up by journalists knowing full well it was a false story, but the content so salacious they couldn’t resist putting it out there for their readers to believe of our president elect. It shows desperation and reveals how upset they are that all of their hard work to boost their chosen candidate did not succeed in delivering her into the Oval Office. They believed themselves to be the king or queen makers and they can’t believe they failed.
They have commanded the airwaves and have been in the pockets of the powerful leftist elites for far too long. They have had free rein to spew outright lies and innuendo about political opponents and cover up and hide any negative reports about their chosen candidates. They have been able to do this because no one will call them out on what they are doing… until Donald Trump. To them a free press means no responsibility or repercussions for their reporting no matter how fallacious or outrageous. The media has become a weapon and a tool to advance a progressive agenda. We are hearing many of our elected officials outraged with disinformation coming from foreign countries, yet they seem okay with disinformation from our own complicit media as long as it supports their cause and keeps them in office.
It makes one wonder if the founders foresaw such a time when the press would become a tool for subversion and destruction of our republic. Of course in those days a man’s word and honor were to be preserved above everything. Reputation mattered and society dealt with liars and thieves quickly and harshly.
In spite of the media bias, the First Amendment must stand. Perhaps PEOTUS Donald Trump has started a dialogue where the media will be held up to the cleansing light of truth and be held accountable for their reporting. But we must acknowledge there will always be fake news. The progressives and their agenda will not go away. They are licking their wounds but they will continue in their goal to destroy America. It is up to We the People to do our due diligence and determine the truth, share it, and expose the liars and their agenda.
Well, there it is!
Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW! Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere. Take from me, you won't want to miss it.
Friday, January 06, 2017
It's OVER. Congress Certifies Trump's Victory Amid Democrat Protest
Ah, this is absolutely delicious. Today, congress officially certified the electoral college vote and of course, Donald Trump's amazing victory. What made it even sweeter is that the Democrats in congress had to watch it happen, with one of their own, Vice President Slo-Joe Biden conducting the festivities in his role as president of the Senate:
Watching Biden have to continually reign in these petulant, tantrum throwing children while Paul Ryan cracked up standing next to him was comedy gold.
Particularly funny was Maxine Waters (D-CA) begging "Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?" Sorry Maxine. Wasn't nobody home.
Trump finished with 304 electoral votes and Democrat Hillary Clinton got 227.
Just to show these anti-democracy spoiled brats I feel their pain, I'd like to dedicate a song to them:
Please feel free to substitute 'America' for 'your baby,' Democrats.
Hail America and it's new President...Donald Trump!
Watching Biden have to continually reign in these petulant, tantrum throwing children while Paul Ryan cracked up standing next to him was comedy gold.
Particularly funny was Maxine Waters (D-CA) begging "Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?" Sorry Maxine. Wasn't nobody home.
Trump finished with 304 electoral votes and Democrat Hillary Clinton got 227.
Just to show these anti-democracy spoiled brats I feel their pain, I'd like to dedicate a song to them:
Please feel free to substitute 'America' for 'your baby,' Democrats.
Hail America and it's new President...Donald Trump!