Connect with us

Everything

Washington Post offers its guide to ‘being presidential’

Published

on

The ever-helpful Washington Post editorial board has come up with a handy guide for President Trump to use in deciding what’s “presidential” behavior.

A few excerpts:

Instead of saying “You know I’d  love it if the cameras could show this crowd, because it is rather incredible. It is incredible.” The Post suggests this:

As we begin, I just want to say on behalf of all Americans that our hearts go out to the 10 American sailors who are missing in the terrible accident involving our 7th Fleet on the other side of the world, and to their families. Our brave men and women serve far from home for months and years at a time and take grave risks every day to keep us free, and this should serve as a reminder of how much we owe them.

Instead of lifting up convicted former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, they have an alternate universe where Trump praises John McCain as “an inspiration,” offers heartfelt thoughts on McCain’s battle with brain cancer, and urges him to “get well and come back soon, John.”

Instead of “But believe me, if we have to close down our government, we’re building that wall,” they suggest:

So let’s not play games here. I’ve got priorities. The Democrats have priorities. I’m ready to sit down and talk and make a deal. But nobody — nobody — should ever threaten to shut down our government.

This inventive alternative to Trump’s actual comments ignores a key fact, that Trump is acting. He said as much in his response on Twitter.

“Enthusiastic, dynamic, and fun.” That’s a review of a Broadway show. It’s very clear that Trump considers his rallies to be entertainment, not presidential events. He uses them to fire up a crowd of supporters, and in turn they fire him up. Truth and statements of charity, thoughts and prayers, and clarity are not part of the fun package.

The president is simply demonstrating what they call in Hollywood his “range.” Look, he can play somber, respectful, strong; or dynamic and fun. He’s a man for all occasions.

The stuck-up know-it-alls at the Washington Post simply don’t like it when he changes roles too often. They’ve typecast him as The West Wing president, or The Joker. It confuses them when he’s both.

Funny thing is, his crowd totally gets it. Most of America totally gets it, though they’d prefer not to hear some of the rally rhetoric. Yet, the press incessantly covers it.

Why don’t they do themselves (and Trump) a favor, and simply turn off the cameras for real, let Trump rant, and report nothing from these rallies where Trump is simply blathering for his own benefit?

I’ll tell you why. He competes with them for entertainment, and they resent it. So they’ve given him a script, and ask that he kindly stick to it.

Good luck with that, WaPo.

Serial entrepreneur. Faith, family, federal republic. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. wordpress8er

    August 24, 2017 at 12:36 pm

    Trump’s base certainly eats it up with a spoon, but then one has to wonder how many of them can discern reality from am amusing reality TV narrative. That Trump’s approval rating continues its shrink suggest the appeal of president as clown prince in chief is self limiting. .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Even though GOP held Arizona House seat, they still lost

Published

on

Ever since the November 2016 election, we have witnessed several special elections across America to fill vacancies—planned and unplanned—at the state and federal levels of government.

Beginning with the special election in Kansas early last year to fill the House seat vacated when Mike Pompeo went to work for Donald Trump—and continuing through a number of special and regular elections—the signs have been everywhere that Republicrats and Trumplicans are facing extinction in November as Washington is engulfed by a Blue Tsunami.

While there have been both victories and defeats for the GOP at the federal level, Ben Shapiro pointed out in March after the PA election where Dem. Connor Lamb beat Rep. Rick Siccone how the electorate is clearly moving in a Democrat direction and how it is most likely tied to Trump’s unpopularity.

Tuesday’s special election in AZ proved once again how the Democrats could be in control of the House and possibly the Senate in November. Though the GOP managed to keep the seat representing AZ’s 8th District, it was only by a 5-point margin in a district Trump won by 21 points in 2016—a district so “red” the Democrats didn’t bother to field a candidate in 2016.

In defense of the narrow victory by Republican Debbie Lesko, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders told reporters that the reason it was so close is because Lesko isn’t as great as Donald Trump, saying, “No offense to this candidate, (but) she’s no Donald Trump.” An ironic statement when you consider that Lesko got more votes than her opponent, unlike Trump against Hillary.

On the state level, Democrats managed to flip a seat on Tuesday in the NY Assembly when Democrat Steve Stern beat Republican Janet Smitelli in a district that had been held by Republicans since 1978.

This continues a very troubling trend where Democrats are dominating state races since Trump became president. This newfound power at the state level could pave the way for unbeatable Democrat majorities when redistricting takes place following the 2020 census.

According to Dave Wasserman, a House elections analyst for Cook Political Report, there are 147 GOP-held House seats in districts that are less Republican than AZ’s 8th District.

With Democrats only needing to over-perform by an average of 4 percent in November to retake the House, it could be that GOP concerns over who will replace Paul Ryan as Speaker becomes the ultimate exercise in futility.

If Republicans aren’t the majority, a Republican will not be the next Speaker of the House.


Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Democrats

Forget lowering unemployment, Bernie Sanders will eliminate it!

Published

on

During his 2016 Democrat primary campaign, Bernie Sanders was “absolutely sympathetic” to the idea of a universal basic income; however, he felt that his plans for a $15/hr. minimum wage, expanding Social Security to pay for guaranteed healthcare, and providing free college would do more than creating just another government handout.

But now Bernie has apparently found a way to accomplish his goals as well as the goals of the universal basic income crowd.
Yesterday, we learned that the self-proclaimed Democratic-Socialist is ready to announce a plan that will guarantee every American “who wants or needs one” a lifetime government job paying at least $15/hr. and proving paid family and medical leave plus retirement, health, and vacation benefits.

While the details are still being worked on, Bernie has admitted that he currently has no idea exactly how much his plan will cost or where the money to pay for it will come from. However, if his 2016 campaign is any indication, the cost will be irrelevant, and the money to pay for it will come from “the billionaires and oligarchs” he refers to as the “top one percent of income earners.”

While it would be tempting to shrug off Bernie’s plan as the rantings of a socialist loon living to the left of the left-wing, we should remember how his Marxist beliefs concerning income inequality caught fire with a generation of Constitutionally ignorant voters raised on the socialist ideology taught in today’s public schools indoctrination centers.

And a poll conducted during the 2016 primary season showed that a majority of millennials rejected capitalism.

Democrats would see a huge voter advantage by creating a new state-run workforce dependent upon them for their jobs. And politicians from both parties would have a new voter-bloc to advance their ideological and political agendas.

Bernie’s plan is being called a guaranteed-jobs program, but the only guarantee it gives us is the destruction of capitalism and Constitutional America.


Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

In UK, Ancient Heathenism Reigns Supreme

Published

on

Several minutes had passed since the medical examination of the newborn had begun. They stood inspective over the infant, occasionally murmuring to one another in a hushed tone.  The babe’s father stood nearby, pacing: his eyes intractably fixed on the small group of elders in a desperate attempt to interpret each subtle lift of an eyebrow or pinch of the lips.

Then came that dreaded nod…

The tormented father wept as the judge read the decision aloud: “as thinking it neither good for the child itself…” the child must die.

The above description is not a reference to the United Kingdom’s government-ordered killing of little Alfie Evans, nor the United Kingdom’s government-ordered killing of little Charlie Gard.

The infant’s death-order, described above, was merely the price of societal perfection for his father, living in the Statist abyss of Ancient Sparta.

In Lives: Lycurgus 16, Greek historian Plutarch (48-122 A.D.) wrote of the medical inspections of infants by “elders,” and of the state-ordered murder of infants in Ancient Sparta under the rule Lycurgus, a tyrannical central-planner:

“Nor was it in the power of the father to dispose of the child as he saw fit (as was his right in most heathen societies). He was obliged to carry (the newborn) child before certain men at a place called Lesche; these men were some of the elders of the tribe to which the child belonged; their business was to carefully view the infant, and, if they found it stout and well made, they gave order for its rearing and allotted to it one of the nine thousand shares of land above mentioned for its maintenance, but, if they found it puny and ill-shaped, ordered it to be taken to what was called the Apothetae (“depository”), a (large cave) under Mt. Taygetus (in the Peloponnese); as thinking it neither for the good of the child itself, nor for the public interest, that it should be brought up, if it did not, from the very outset, appear to be healthy and vigorous.” (emphasis mine)

Undesirable Infants – those either deemed unfit in some way, were conceived through rape, were unwanted, or were female – were often exposed, meaning that these infants were tossed into pits or over cliffs, or were abandoned in the wilderness and then left to starve or to be eaten by wild animals.

Such was life in the pagan purgatories of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome.

Such has life begun to be again, today, in the United Kingdom.

As I type, a toddler lies in the hospital, a prisoner, detained by the pagan pride of evil monsters, by his own Statist government.

The “elders” in the UK have sentenced little Alfie Evans to die, “as thinking it neither for the good of the child itself. Alfie may not be alone in the wilderness, but he is being exposed by the sword of starvation.

Right now, a tormented father weeps for his child.

The cruel winds of an evil-ridden history are circling ’round again.

 

Once Christianity came upon the scene, Christians began to regularly rescue exposed infants.

As Tertullian stated, “Christians sought out the tiny bodies of newborn babies from the refuse and dung heaps and raised them as their own or tended to them before they died or gave them a decent burial” (Early Church History).

“The Christian idea that each individual person has worth because they were created by God was foreign to the lies of pagan society where the State, the tribe, the collective was the only value they knew” (Early Church History).

One can even visit these once abandoned babes at the Catacomb of Praetextatus. “The catacombs are filled with very tiny graves with the epitaph ‘adopted daughter of…’ or ‘adopted son of…’ inscribed on them. These inscriptions refer to the many babies and young children Christians rescued from the trash over the centuries” (Early Church History).

Unlike during the times of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece, however, today’s United Kingdom prevents Christians from aiding Britain’s exposed children.

Christians from across the globe have offered aid and open arms to little Alfie Evans. Pope Francis has faithfully attempted to save the ailing child, arranging medical transportation for Alfie so that he might fly via air ambulance to the Vatican’s hospital.

Still, the prideful “elders” cling mercilessly to their pagan heathenism, determined to deny any and all Christian charity for little Alfie.

 

Alas! One thing is now crystal clear: in the United Kingdom, ancient heathenism reigns supreme.

For a glimpse of the future, listen to these famous voices from the past:

In On the Laws 3.8, Cicero (106-43 BC) states:

“Deformed infants shall be killed.”

Posidippus, a Greek poet, wrote:

“Everybody raises a son even if he is poor, but exposes a daughter even if he is rich.”

In On Anger 1.15, Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) wrote:

“…mad dogs we knock on the head…unnatural progeny we destroy; we drown even children at birth who are weakly and abnormal.”

In Politics 7.1335b, Aristotle (364 BC-322 BC) wrote:

“As to exposing or rearing the children born, let there be a law that no deformed child shall be reared;  but on the ground of number of children, if the regular customs hinder any of those born being exposed, there must be a limit fixed to the procreation of offspring, and if any people have a child as a result of intercourse in contravention of these regulations, abortion must be practiced on it (the child).”

In Theaetetus, the Greek philosopher Plato (quoting Socrates) wrote of the important societal task of killing infirm infants:

“For we must take care that we don’t overlook some defect in this thing that is entering into life; it may be something not worth bringing up, a wind-egg, a falsehood. What do you say? Is it your opinion that your child ought in any case to be brought up and not exposed to die? Can you bear to see it found fault with and not get into a rage if your first-born is stolen away from you?”

In Ad Nationes, Tertullian (155-220 A.D.) recorded the frequency of pagan infanticide in the Roman Empire during the late 100’s and early 200’s A.D.:

“…because, although you are forbidden by the laws to slay new-born infants, it so happens that no laws are evaded with more impunity or greater safety, with the deliberate knowledge of the public, and the suffrages of this entire age…But then you make away with them in a more cruel manner, because you expose them to the cold and hunger, and to wild beasts, or else you get rid of them by the slower death of drowning.”

In Book 3 of Instructor, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.) wrote of Roman women caring more for animals than for children:

“And though maintaining parrots and curlews, they do not receive the orphan child; but they expose children that are born at home, and take up the young of birds, and prefer irrational to rational creatures.”

 

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.