Thanksgiving 2017: Thanksgiving Proclamation; Thanks to God

Thanksgiving 2017:

Thanksgiving Proclamation; Thanks to God

THANKSGIVING DAY, 2017
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

On Thanksgiving Day, as we have for nearly four centuries, Americans give thanks to Almighty God for our abundant blessings. We gather with the people we love to show gratitude for our freedom, for our friends and families, and for the prosperous Nation we call home.

In July 1620, more than 100 Pilgrims boarded the Mayflower, fleeing religious persecution and seeking freedom and opportunity in a new and unfamiliar place. These dauntless souls arrived in Plymouth, Massachusetts, in the freezing cold of December 1620. They were greeted by sickness and severe weather, and quickly lost 46 of their fellow travelers. Those who endured the incredible hardship of their first year in America, however, had many reasons for gratitude. They had survived. They were free. And, with the help of the Wampanoag tribe, and a bountiful harvest, they were regaining their health and strength. In thanks to God for these blessings, the new governor of the Plymouth Colony, William Bradford, proclaimed a day of thanksgiving and gathered with the Wampanoag tribe for three days of celebration.

For the next two centuries, many individual colonies and states, primarily in the Northeast, carried on the tradition of fall Thanksgiving festivities. But each state celebrated it on a different day, and sometime on an occasional basis. It was not until 1863 that the holiday was celebrated on one day, nationwide. In the aftermath of the Battle of Gettysburg, one of the bloodiest battles of our Nation’s Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed that the country would set aside one day to remember its many blessings. “In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity,” President Lincoln proclaimed, we recall the “bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come.” As President Lincoln recognized: “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.”

Today, we continue to celebrate Thanksgiving with a grateful and charitable spirit. When we open our hearts and extend our hands to those in need, we show humility for the bountiful gifts we have received. In the aftermath of a succession of tragedies that have stunned and shocked our Nation – Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria; the wildfires that ravaged the West; and, the horrific acts of violence and terror in Las Vegas, New York City, and Sutherland Springs we have witnessed the generous nature of the American people. In the midst of heartache and turmoil, we are grateful for the swift action of the first responders, law enforcement personnel, military and medical professionals, volunteers, and everyday heroes who embodied our infinite capacity to extend compassion and humanity to our fellow man. As we mourn these painful events, we are ever confident that the perseverance and optimism of the American people will prevail.

We can see, in the courageous Pilgrims who stood on Plymouth Rock in new land, the intrepidness that lies at the core of our American spirit. Just as the Pilgrims did, today Americans stand strong, willing to fight for their families and their futures, to uphold our values, and to confront any challenge.

This Thanksgiving, in addition to rejoicing in precious time spent with loved ones, let us find ways to serve and encourage each other in both word and deed. We also offer a special word of thanks for the brave men and women of our Armed Forces, many of whom must celebrate this holiday separated from the ones for whom they are most thankful. As one people, we seek God’s protection, guidance, and wisdom as we stand humbled by the abundance of our great Nation and the blessings of freedom, family, and faith.

Painting above, The First Thanksgiving by Jennie Augusta Brownscomb, 1914

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Thursday, November 23, 2017, as a National Day of Thanksgiving. I encourage all Americans to gather, in homes and places of worship, to offer a prayer of thanks to God for our many blessings.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventeenth day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand seventeen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-second.

DONALD J. TRUMP

Advertisements

Culture Wars: Gold Star Widow releases call with Trump; Reveals Democrat Smear Campaign against President Trump that Dishonors Fallen Soldiers

Culture Wars:

There are so many liberal lies swirling around by anti-American hate groups bent on destroying a duly elected patriotic President. It is important to know the truth, which is the purpose of this blog. Below is an actual call President Trump made to a Gold Star widow in April. After that, General Kelly sets the record straight in the face of a very un-compassionate smear campaign by a democrat congresswoman. We all must diligently discern truth from falsehood. Consider the fruits of the anti-American Left’s relentless smear campaign: hatred against God, hatred against decent Americans and American heroes. ~C.D.

Gold Star Widow releases call with Trump; Reveals Democrat Smear Campaign against President Trump that Dishonors Fallen Soldiers

Truth about Trump

Gold Star Widow Shares Her Call with President Trump

Gold star widow Natasha De Alencar released the audio of a phone conversation she had with President Donald Trump in April about the death of her husband who was killed in Afghanistan.

“I am so sorry to hear about the whole situation. What a horrible thing, except that he’s an unbelievable hero,” Trump told her in the call about her husband Army Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar, which The Washington Post released.

“Thank you. I really, really appreciated it,” she said. “I really do, sir.”

Natasha De Alencar had just returned home on April 12 after making T-shirts and pillowcases in her husband’s memory when the Army casualty assistance officer told her there was someone on the phone for her. It was President Trump.

Days before, two Army men told her that her husband, Army Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar, had been killed in Afghanistan on April 8.

De Alencar was killed during a firefight with Islamic State fighters in eastern Afghanistan. He was a member of the 7th Special Forces Group.

He left behind five children — Deshaune, 20, Octavia, 18, ­Rodrigo, 16, Tatiyana, 13, and Marcos, 5 — and his wife of 15 years.

Trump opened by saying how sorry he is about the “whole situation,” before adding that De Alencar’s husband was “an unbelievable hero.”

“At that moment when my world was upside down and me and my kids didn’t know which way we were going, it felt like I was talking to just another regular human,” De Alencar said.

Later in the call, Trump invited De Alencar to the White House, telling her, “If you’re around Washington, you come over and see me in the Oval Office,” before asking about her oldest son, Deshaun, who is playing college football at Missouri Valley College in Marshall, Mo.

De Alencar told Trump that her son had received a scholarship, and Trump asked whether it was an academic or sports scholarship. (It was an academic scholarship.)

The conversation then shifted to De Alencar’s four other children. Trump asked her to say hello to them for him and to “tell them their father was a great hero that I respected.”

The phone call ended with Trump repeating his invitation to the White House and advising De Alencar to take care of herself. In total, the conversation lasted just under four minutes.

“It was a moment of niceness that we needed because we were going through hell,” De Alencar said.

Trump also told the widow if she is ever in Washington D.C. that she is welcome in the Oval Office.

“If you’re around Washington, you come over and see me in the Oval Office,” he said. “You just come over and see me because you are just the kind of family … this is what we want.”

“Say hello to your children, and tell them your father he was a great hero that I respected,” Trump said. “Just tell them I said your father was a great hero.”

 

RUSH LIMBAUGH: I want to go through the audio sound bites. This happened yesterday. It happened after the program yesterday, the Chief of Staff John Kelly going to the press room in the White House and making his statement in the middle of this controversy over whether or not Trump knows what to say and says the right things when he calls the families of military people killed in action.

RUSH: Now before setting up General Kelly, I want to go back, and this is a montage of what the Obama administration told Gold Star families after Benghazi.

RUSH:it was a premeditated terrorist attack and the video had nothing to do with it. You want to talk about lying to Gold Star families?

Setting the Record Straight: Chief of Staff John Kelly talks about His Own Son’s Sacrifice

As reporters shouted questions, Kelly responded, “Is anyone here a gold star parent or sibling?”

The room was silent.

 

Gen. Kelly Serves: Moving Defense of American Soldiers, Gold Star Families, POTUS..

…WH COS: ‘Stunned’ Rep. Wilson Politicized President’s Call…Is Nothing Sacred?…

…’Mad Hatter’ Dissed: ‘Empty barrels make the most noise’

 

KELLY: Most Americans don’t know what happens when we lose one of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, or Coast Guardsmen in combat. So let me tell you what happens. Their buddies wrap them in whatever passes as a shroud, puts them on a helicopter as a routine and sends them home. Their first stop along the way is when they’re packed in ice, typically at the airhead, and then they’re flown to usually Europe, where they’re then packed in ice again and flown to Dover Air Force Base where Dover takes care of the remains, embalms them and meticulously dresses them in the uniform with the medals that they’ve earned, the emblems of their service. And then puts them on another airplane linked up with a casualty officer escort that takes them home.

KELLY: Hours after my son was killed, his friends were calling us from Afghanistan telling us what a great guy he was. Those are the only phone calls that really matter. If you elect to call a family like this, it is about the most difficult thing you could imagine. There’s no perfect way to make that phone call. When I took this job and talked to President Trump about how to do it, my first recommendation was he not do it, because it’s not the phone call that parents, family members are looking forward to. It’s a nice to-do in my opinion, in any event. He asked me about previous presidents. And I said I can tell you that President Obama, who was my Commander in Chief when I was on active duty, did not call my family.

RUSH: There you go. Now, I don’t know what you’ve heard about this, but when this kerfuffle began and Trump was being hit from all sides, as always, he brought in General Kelly and he mentioned that very point. That Obama didn’t take the time to call General Kelly or his family. Then we got stories about how Kelly was outraged and shamed and sorry that Trump had chosen to politicize the death of his son.

Well, I guess that wasn’t true either, because here’s Kelly setting the record straight. Obama didn’t call him. The Drive-Bys and everybody involved wanted to make it look like Trump had lied because that’s what they always try to make it look like. So they sit there shocked and devastated by what they’ve heard. But they get over it pretty quickly, because none of this is going to shape in any way their take on this event. Hearing the truth, hearing the details, does not deter the forces arrayed against Donald Trump on this. Another salient point in that bite is General Kelly also confirming that he told President Trump not to do it, it’s a tough call. It’s difficult to know what to say.

We have people whose job it is to inform the parents. Do you know what that policy is, by the way? You’ve seen it. You’ve seen it portrayed in movies, where a mother or father or family is happily engaged and getting ready for the day and there’s a knock on the door. The mother or father answers the door and it’s two uniformed military personnel.

The one thing I didn’t know is that the policy is for the uniformed military personnel who are going to convey the information to the family show up before dawn, and they park outside the home and they wait until very first light, before people may even be up. And at first light, they approach the front door and knock on it.

And the theory being that this needs to be the first thing the family hears in their day. As opposed to at 10:00 when people are gone, the whole family is not there. As opposed to later that night, it’s best to do this at the beginning of the day. And there is a studied policy for this based on learned experience with all this. And General Kelly told Trump don’t do it, it’s a difficult thing to do. They’re not expecting to hear from you, so don’t do it. Trump told Kelly he wanted to do it, and did it. And here’s Kelly explaining that.

KELLY: I think he very bravely does make those calls. So he called four people the other day and expressed his condolences in the best way that he could. And he said to me: “What do I say?” I said to him, “Sir, there’s nothing you can do to lighten the burden on these families. But let me tell you what I tell them. Let me tell you what my best friend, Joe Dunford, told me, because he was my casualty officer. He said: ‘Kel, he was doing exactly what he wanted to do when he was killed. He knew what he was getting into by joining that one percent. He knew what the possibilities were because we’re at war. And when he died –‘” and the four cases we’re talking about, Niger, my son’s case in Afghanistan, “‘– when he died, he was surrounded by the best men on this earth, his friends.’” That’s what the president tried to say to four families the other day.

RUSH: Okay. So there’s Kelly explaining what he told Trump that he says. He said that Trump asked him what to say. Well, you know when I first heard, by the way, when this really whacko Democrat Congresswoman from down here in Florida — I mean, she’s a piece of work. She’s out there claiming, “My kids are going to recognize me as a rock star.” She thinks she’s really popular now because the White House is talking about her.

He said, “He was doing exactly what he wanted to do when he was killed.” Trump had his own way of verbalizing that. But the fact that they harped on this, and lying about the fact that Trump didn’t even call somebody and then promised to send somebody $25,000 and Trump didn’t send the money — when he did send the money. The check was sent. (sigh) It just… Every day, every day these people are on the assault.

Empty Barrel: Nothing’s Sacred

To me, “Empty Barrel” is an apt metaphor for Wilson. Her total lack of compassion or respect for those who gave their lives for her freedom to express her hatred makes one question if her soul is empty as well. ~C.D.

KELLY: I was stunned when I came to work yesterday morning — and brokenhearted — at what I saw a member of Congress doing. A member of Congress who listened in on a phone call from the president of the United States to a young wife, and in his way tried to express that opinion that he’s a brave man, a fallen hero. He knew what he was getting himself into, because he enlisted. There’s no reason to enlist. He enlisted, and he was where he wanted to be — exactly where he wanted to be — with exactly the people he wanted to be with when his life was taken. That was the message.

It stuns me that a member of Congress would have listened in on that conversation. It absolutely stuns me. I thought at least that was sacred. You know, when I was a kid growing up, a lot of things were sacred in our country. Women were sacred and looked upon with great honor. That’s obviously not the case anymore, as we see from recent cases. Life? The dignity of life was sacred. That’s gone. Religion? That seems to be gone as well. Gold Star families? I think that left in the convention over the summer. I just thought the selfless devotion that brings a man or woman to die on the battlefield… I just thought that that might be sacred.

KELLY: I went to the dedication of the new FBI field office in Miami, and it was dedicated to two men who were killed in a firefight in Miami against drug traffickers. There were family members there. Some of the children that were there were only 3 or 4 years old when their dads were killed on that street in Miami-Dade. Three of the men that survived the fight were there and gave a rendition of how brave those men were and how they gave their lives. And a congresswoman stood up, and — in a long tradition of empty barrels making the most noise — stood up there in all of that, and talked about how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building, and how she took care of her constituents because she got the money.

And she just called up President Obama, and on that phone call, he gave the money — the $20 million — to build the building. And she sat down. And we were stunned, stunned that she’d done it. Even for someone that is that empty a barrel, we were stunned. I still hope, as you write your stories — and I appeal to America — that let’s not let this maybe last thing that is held sacred in our society: A young man, a young woman going out and giving his or her life for our country.

Let’s try to somehow keep that sacred. But it eroded a great deal yesterday by the selfish behavior of a member of Congress.

My Analysis of General Kelly’s Remarks

 

President Trump Declares National Day of Prayer for Harvey Victims

President Trump Declares National Day of Prayer for Harvey Victims

President Donald Trump is declaring Sunday a National Day of Prayer for victims of Hurricane Harvey and “for those suffering in this time of crisis.”

In proclaiming Sept. 3 a “National Day of Prayer for the Victims of Hurricane Harvey and for our National Response and Recovery Efforts, the president noted that from the nation’s beginning, “Americans have joined together in prayer during times of great need, to ask for God’s blessings and guidance.”

History Facts: Media Bias, the Demise of Journalistic Integrity; Rise of the Smear Campaign

History Facts:

Media Bias, the Demise of Journalistic Integrity; Rise of the Smear Campaign

The 2016 Election and the Demise of Journalistic Standards

Hillsdale Imprimis Part 1

Michael Goodwin
The New York Post

I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale—that most of what you read, watch, and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.

It’s not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at The New York Times, so I’m familiar with the species.

History of Media Bias

For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and ’70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large. The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government—and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in All the President’s Men. Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That’s because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.

Promote Big Government, Not Report Truth

During the years I spent teaching at the Columbia University School of Journalism, I often found myself telling my students that the job of the reporter was “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” I’m not even sure where I first heard that line, but it still captures the way most journalists think about what they do.

Habit of thinking: Create Victim Groups

Translate the first part of that compassionate-sounding idea into the daily decisions about what makes news, and it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that every person afflicted by something is entitled to help. Or, as liberals like to say, “Government is what we do together.” From there, it’s a short drive to the conclusion that every problem has a government solution.

The rest of that journalistic ethos—“afflict the comfortable”—leads to the knee-jerk support of endless taxation. Somebody has to pay for that government intervention the media loves to demand. In the same vein, and for the same reason, the average reporter will support every conceivable regulation as a way to equalize conditions for the poor. He will also give sympathetic coverage to groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.

A New Dimension

I knew all of this about the media mindset going into the 2016 presidential campaign. But I was still shocked at what happened. This was not naïve liberalism run amok. This was a whole new approach to politics.

 In the beginning, Donald Trump’s candidacy was treated as an outlandish publicity stunt, as though he wasn’t a serious candidate and should be treated as a circus act. But television executives quickly made a surprising discovery: the more they put Trump on the air, the higher their ratings climbed. Ratings are money. So news shows started devoting hours and hours simply to pointing the cameras at Trump and letting them run.

As his rallies grew, the coverage grew, which made for an odd dynamic. The candidate nobody in the media took seriously was attracting the most people to his events and getting the most news coverage. Newspapers got in on the game too. Trump, unlike most of his opponents, was always available to the press, and could be counted on to say something outrageous or controversial that made a headline. He made news by being a spectacle.

Despite the mockery of journalists and late-night comics, something extraordinary was happening. Trump was dominating a campaign none of the smart money thought he could win. And then, suddenly, he was winning. Only when the crowded Republican field began to thin and Trump kept racking up primary and caucus victories did the media’s tone grow more serious.

One study estimated that Trump had received so much free airtime that if he had had to buy it, the price would have been $2 billion.

The realization that they had helped Trump’s rise seemed to make many executives, producers, and journalists furious. By the time he secured the nomination and the general election rolled around, they were gunning for him. Only two people now had a chance to be president, and the overwhelming media consensus was that it could not be Donald Trump. They would make sure of that.

The coverage of him grew so vicious and one-sided that last August I wrote a column on the unprecedented bias. Under the headline “American Journalism Is Collapsing Before Our Eyes,” I wrote that the so-called cream of the media crop was “engaged in a naked display of partisanship” designed to bury Trump and elect Hillary Clinton.

Historic Smear Campaign of a Presidential Candidate

The evidence was on the front page, the back page, the culture pages, even the sports pages. It was at the top of the broadcast and at the bottom of the broadcast. Day in, day out, in every media market in America, Trump was savaged like no other candidate in memory. We were watching the total collapse of standards, with fairness and balance tossed overboard. Every story was an opinion masquerading as news, and every opinion ran in the same direction—toward Clinton and away from Trump.

For the most part, I blame The New York Times and The Washington Post for causing this breakdown. The two leading liberal newspapers were trying to top each other in their demonization of Trump and his supporters. They set the tone, and most of the rest of the media followed like lemmings.

The Presidency as a First Job for an Outsider?

On one level, tougher scrutiny of Trump was clearly defensible. He had a controversial career and lifestyle, and he was seeking the presidency as his first job in government. He also provided lots of fuel with some of his outrageous words and deeds during the campaign.

But from the beginning there was also a second element to the lopsided coverage. The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, meaning it would back a dead raccoon if it had a “D” after its name. Think of it—George McGovern over Richard Nixon? Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan? Walter Mondale over Reagan? Any Democrat would do. And The Washington Post, which only started making editorial endorsements in the 1970s, has never once endorsed a Republican for president.

All Pretense of Fairness Dropped

But again, I want to emphasize that 2016 had those predictable elements plus a whole new dimension. This time, the papers dropped the pretense of fairness and jumped headlong into the tank for one candidate over the other. The Times media reporter began a story this way:

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalist tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him? [But it was A-OK for Obama to cozy up to anti-American dictators? ~C.D.]

If you can’t be fair, you shouldn’t cover the candidate—Cover Sports or Entertainment

I read that paragraph and I thought to myself, well, that’s actually an easy question. If you feel that way about Trump, normal journalistic ethics would dictate that you shouldn’t cover him. You cannot be fair. And you shouldn’t be covering Hillary Clinton either, because you’ve already decided who should be president. Go cover sports or entertainment. Yet the Times media reporter rationalized the obvious bias he had just acknowledged, citing the view that Clinton was “normal” and Trump was not.

What happened to fairness? What happened to Journalistic Standards? New York Times Eliminated Them

I found the whole concept appalling. What happened to fairness? What happened to standards? I’ll tell you what happened to them. The Times top editor, Dean Baquet, eliminated them. In an interview last October with the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, Baquet admitted that the piece by his media reporter had nailed his own thinking. Trump “challenged our language,” he said, and Trump “will have changed journalism.” Of the daily struggle for fairness, Baquet had this to say: “I think that Trump has ended that struggle. . . . We now say stuff. We fact check him. We write it more powerfully that [what he says is] false.”

Baquet was being too modest. Trump was challenging, sure, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He’s the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be abandoned without consequence.

New Formula: Who, What, When, Where, and Why + OPINION

With that decision, Baquet also changed the basic news story formula. To the age-old elements of who, what, when, where, and why, he added the reporter’s opinion. Now the floodgates were open, and virtually every so-called news article reflected a clear bias against Trump. Stories, photos, headlines, placement in the paper—all the tools that writers and editors have—were summoned to the battle. The goal was to pick the next president.

Liberal Lies Never Exposed

Thus began the spate of stories, which continues today, in which the Times routinely calls Trump a liar in its news pages and headlines. Again, the contrast with the past is striking. The Times never called Barack Obama a liar, despite such obvious opportunities as “you can keep your doctor” and “the Benghazi attack was caused by an internet video.”

From Journalistic Integrity to Cheerleading

Indeed, the Times and The Washington Post, along with most of the White House press corps, spent eight years cheerleading the Obama administration, seeing not a smidgen of corruption or dishonesty. They have been tougher on Hillary Clinton during her long career. But they still never called her a liar, despite such doozies as “I set up my own computer server so I would only need one device,” “I turned over all the government emails,” and “I never sent or received classified emails.” All those were lies, but not to the national media. Only statements by Trump were fair game.

 

Moral Support: Veterans Affairs Reform Under Way

Moral Support:

Veterans Affairs Reform Under Way

Draining the swamp: President Trump fires over 500 employees from an agency that he criticized last year

Carlos Garcia

“Drain the swamp” was a favorite chant during President Donald Trump’s campaign, and it looks like he’s kept his promise at the office of Veterans Affairs.

A new report says more than 500 employees have been fired at the agency, and another 200 have been suspended.

The Daily Caller reported on statistics released by the department because of Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin as a part of their commitment to transparency.

“Those disciplined include 22 senior leaders, more than 70 nurses, 14 police officers, and 25 physicians,” it was reported.

Trump repeated the promise constantly during his campaign that he would fix the scandalous reports from the Veterans Affairs offices. In July during his presidential campaign last year, then-candidate Trump promised “never again will we allow any veteran to suffer or die waiting for care.”

Trump said that the country would “take care of our veterans like they’ve never been taken care of before,” adding,  “we will pick up the bill … it’ll cost us less money and the care will be amazing.”

While some VA offices provide admirable care to our military, others have been crippled with inefficiency and incompetence to such a degree that they’ve been accused of causing deaths among those seeking health care.

In August, a veteran killed himself in the parking lot of a Veterans hospital in Long Island after being turned away for the help he was seeking. The 76-year-old went back to his car and shot himself.

According to another report in February, veterans seeking help on a crisis hotline were sent to voicemail for lack of resources. The calls were never returned.

In January, a VA official was arrested and charged with sexually assaulting a patient in Tomah, Wisconsin. The mental health employee faced seven charges of taking advantage of a vulnerable patient/veteran.

Conservative critics of the Veterans Affairs office have advocated for a free-market-based solution where those veterans seeking medical help would be given a voucher to arrange for their own health care instead of having to be funneled into the government-provided care. Shulkin has indicated that he wants to seek private industry solutions to the problems plaguing the care the government provides to veterans.

Moral Support: Congress Bills, President Trump seek to end Human Trafficking

Moral Support:

Congress Bills, President Trump seek to end Human Trafficking

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed three bills that seek to end human trafficking, and the President is urging the Senate to pass these bills so that he may sign them into law.

Truth in Journalism: Rescue Dying Baby in UK from Socialized Medicine in United Kingdom

Truth in Journalism about Moral Support:

Rescue Dying Baby in UK from Socialized Medicine in United Kingdom

(Newsmax)

Trump Offers to Help Dying British Baby

President Donald Trump on Monday offered the nation’s help to Charlie Gard, the terminally ill British baby with a rare genetic disease and brain damage.

In a tweet, the commander in chief said:

If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so.

Last week, his parents Connie Yates and Chris Gard lost a heart-wrenching legal battle to jet him to the United States for experimental therapy that British courts concluded will not work.

The Great Ormond Street Hospital in London was set to turn off Charlie’s life support Friday. But the hospital later decided to give the parents more time with him.

And on Sunday, Pope Francis called for the parents to be allowed to do everything possible to treat the 10-month-old tot, reversing a previous Vatican position after a swell of complaints.

Charlie’s parents raised nearly $1.7 million to pay for his treatment in the U.S. Twitter users have decried the British single-payer healthcare system for its refusal to let their son get treatment.

Charlie is unable to breathe on his own and relies on assistance from an oxygen machine.

If Trump does choose to intervene, it wouldn’t be the first time he’s sent help for a critically ill little boy.

Chelsea Schilling

(WorldNet Daily)

In 1988, Trump reportedly sent his private 727 to Los Angeles to medically transport 3-year-old Andrew Ten, an Orthodox Jewish boy who had a rare and undiagnosed breathing illness, to New York for treatment. Commercial airlines had refused to transport the child.

On July 20, 1988, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s Daily News Bulletin reported:

Trump made his plane available for the special trip to New York after the boy’s parents, Judy and Harold Ten, called Trump and told him of their plight.

Commercial airlines refused to fly the child because he could not travel without an elaborate life-support system, which includes a portable oxygen tank, a suction machine, a breathing bag and an adrenaline syringe.

“Mr. Trump did not hesitate when we called him up. He said ‘yes, I’ll send my plane out,’” 29-year-old Harold Ten recalled shortly after he landed here Tuesday morning.

Asked why he thought Trump made his private jet available, Ten replied, “Because he is a good man. He has three children of his own and he knows what being a parent is all about.”

Major Networks Censor the Story

In the current case, major broadcast networks have censored news about Baby Gard, according to NewsBusters.org. Despite public outcry over the story, ABC and CBS have yet to report on Gard’s case.

The Daily Caller reported Monday that NBC reporter Matt Bradley accused President Trump of exploiting Baby Gard.

History Facts vs. Liberal Lies and Smear Campaign against President Trump

History Facts vs. Liberal Lies and Smear Campaign against President Trump

After decades of indoctrination in the schools, liberals know no truth at all about history, and prefer to believe lies.  Let us be diligent in studying and learning true history and its patterns, for Satan goes about deceiving whole nations. ~C.D.

UPDATE: Look what has been caused by irresponsible reporting of lies and rumors!

This hoax is getting people shot! ~Rush Limbaugh

Understanding Trump Derangement Syndrome

The following article is a bit long, but please study it carefully. It provides insightful understanding of reasons why the Left would ally itself with such dark and satanic influences. ~C.D.

Bizarre Alliance. The honest truth is: The alliance between the left and Islam can best be explained biy the overarching reality that they share a common enemy, Christianity. Thus does the left warmly sidle up to Islam, which, truth be known, were it in charge would destroy the left, throwing members of the left’s main constituent groups off buildings or hanging or stoning or otherwise executing or enslaving them. ~David Kupelian, May Whistleblower, 6.

David Kupelian on reasons the left is going insane with rage, delusion, violence

President Trump compared to Hitler in Smear Campaign

Islamists were tight with Hitler during the World War 2 era, as they shared the desire of racial supremacy over the Jews. ~C.D.

Related Post:

History Facts: ISIS and Nazi Germany

Liberal Lies

First, let’s agree on what is indisputably true: The left frequently compares Trump to Hitler, and I’m not talking about just Facebook rants and anti-Trump protest signs. The Washington Post, as I documented last October in a pre-election article titled “5 Washington Post writers liken Trump to Hitler,” spent 2016 explicitly and continually comparing Donald J. Trump to one of history’s most evil and universally reviled genocidal monsters.

In reality – Hitler murdered 11 million innocent people, while Trump, a billionaire New York real estate developer who wrote one of the best-selling business books of all time and got himself elected president, has never killed anyone.

Media Bias engages in Specific Kind of Demonization

Class warfare is to socialism as race warfare was to Nazism. Today, the leftist Democrat Party has managed to adopt both. ~Rush Limbaugh

It’s no coincidence the word “mad” is used to mean both angry and insane, for being angry enough can make you insane.

The worst, most depraved acts of evil you can think of – war, mass-terrorism, genocide – are preceded by the total demonization of the adversary, just as we’re seeing in the left’s hysterically evil characterizations of President Trump.

So “this demonization,” he said, “included two specific components:

“First, the victims had to be perceived as a clear and present threat, so that the killers were convinced they were acting in self-defense.

Second, the victims were dehumanized, so that the killers convinced themselves that they were not destroying real human beings.”

So, what does this say about the Washington Post – and others in the “mainstream media” who consider themselves America’s arbiters of truth – continually comparing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump with Hitler? Does such “journalism” legitimize threats and violent attacks on Trump and his supporters?

I arrived at this chilling conclusion: “If someone, God forbid – convinced he is a modern-day von Stauffenberg, heroically attempting to rid the world of this generation’s Hitler – were to shoot Donald Trump, would the Washington Post [and other hateful media] deserve any of the blame? I say yes.”

At war with reality

Beyond the left’s post-election meltdown and its ongoing campaign to overturn voters’ decision by demonizing Trump in hopes of crippling, impeaching and prosecuting him, there is yet a second reason the left hates the right – a reason even more vexing and profound.

It’s because these positions represent reality, truth, common sense.

Next question: Why do you suppose left-wing mayhem erupts on college campuses when conservative speakers like Ann Coulter are scheduled to lecture?

What is so offensive about Coulter’s (and other conservatives’) advocacy of sane immigration policies that riots, criminality and totalitarian attacks on free speech should inevitably result?

If you look carefully, you’ll discern that in almost all cases, it’s somebody speaking sensibly and truthfully that inspires the holy rage of the left. No such outrage accompanies college appearances by dangerous lunatic anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan or communist (and Obama pal) Bill Ayers.

No, it’s almost always a conservative and/or Christian speaking common-sense truth that reliably elicits the now-familiar hysterical, shrieking, violent response of the left.

Prick of Conscience provokes Anger

Let’s put this strange phenomenon under a microscope with one final example, to bring what is really at play into sharper focus:

For decades, pro-life “sidewalk counselors” have stood outside abortion clinics, speaking in a respectful, persuasive manner to women entering these killing facilities intent on ending the little life within their womb. Many women have been penetrated by these words and changed course; if not, pro-lifers wouldn’t engage in this kind of intervention day in and day out, year after year, decade after decade.

But occasionally, the woman entering the clinic becomes enraged at the sidewalk counselor’s plea that she spare the life of her unborn child. The woman may later swear that the sidewalk counselor was abusive, threatening, intimidating, screaming – perhaps even violent.

It’s not true, of course. But the psychic shock the woman experienced from having been confronted, however lovingly, with the truth she had been running away from felt to her like an act of great cruelty. After all, she felt awful after encountering the sidewalk counselor, so therefore the sidewalk counselor must have done something awful. Right?

Wrong. All that happened is that the conscience she had worked so hard to deny, suppress and evade popped out and spoke to her from within another person. (If you think about it, this is a key reason for Christian persecution.)

http://www.wnd.com/2017/06/understanding-trump-derangement-syndrome/

 

Related Post:

History Facts: ISIS and Nazi Germany

 

 

Heritage Foundation Report: Exit from Paris Climate Agreement good for America

Heritage Foundation Report:

Exit from Paris Climate Agreement good for America

4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull Out of the Paris Agreement

Nicolas Loris, Katie Tubb

President Donald Trump has fulfilled a key campaign pledge, announcing that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

The Paris Agreement, which committed the U.S. to drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, was a truly bad deal—bad for American taxpayers, American energy companies, and every single American who depends on affordable, reliable energy.

It was also bad for the countries that remain in the agreement. Here are four reasons Trump was right to withdraw.

1. The Paris Agreement was costly and ineffective.

The Paris Agreement is highly costly and would do close to nil to address climate change.

If carried out, the energy regulations agreed to in Paris by the Obama administration would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm American manufacturing, and destroy $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by the year 2035.

In withdrawing from the agreement, Trump removed a massive barrier to achieving the 3 percent economic growth rates America is accustomed to.

Simply rolling back the Paris regulations isn’t enough. The Paris Agreement would have extended long beyond the Trump administration, so remaining in the agreement would have kept the U.S. subject to its terms.

Those terms require countries to update their commitments every five years to make them more ambitious, starting in 2020. Staying in the agreement would have prevented the U.S. from backsliding or even maintaining the Obama administration’s initial commitment of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent.

The Obama administration made clear in its commitment that these cuts were only incremental, leading up to an eventual 80 percent cut in the future.

In terms of climate benefits produced by Paris, there are practically none.

Even if every country met its commitments—a big “if” considering China has already underreported its carbon dioxide emissions, and there are no repercussions for failing to meet the pledges—the changes in the earth’s temperature would be almost undetectable.

2. The agreement wasted taxpayer money.

In climate negotiations leading up to the Paris conference, participants called for a Green Climate Fund that would collect $100 billion per year by 2020.

The goal of this fund would be to subsidize green energy and pay for other climate adaptation and mitigation programs in poorer nations—and to get buy-in (literally) from those poorer nations for the final Paris Agreement.

The Obama administration ended up shipping $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to this fund without authorization from Congress.

Some of the top recipients of these government-funded climate programs have in the past been some of the most corrupt, which means corrupt governments collect the funds, not those who actually need it.

No amount of transparency negotiated in the Paris Agreement is going to change this.

Free enterprise, the rule of law, and private property are the key ingredients for prosperity. These are the principles that actually will help people in developing countries prepare for and cope with a changing climate and natural disasters, whether or not they are caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Withdrawal is a demonstration of leadership.

The media is making a big to-do about the fact that the only countries not participating in the Paris Agreement are Syria and Nicaragua.

But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a bad deal. Misery loves company, including North Korea and Iran, who are signatories of the deal.

Some have argued that it is an embarrassment for the U.S. to cede leadership on global warming to countries like China. But to draw a moral equivalency between the U.S. and China on this issue is absurd.

China has serious air quality issues (not from carbon dioxide), and Beijing has repeatedly falsified its coal consumption and air monitoring data, even as it participated in the Paris Agreement. There is no environmental comparison between the U.S. and China.

Other countries have a multitude of security, economic, and diplomatic reasons to work with America to address issues of mutual concern. Withdrawal from the agreement will not change that.

Certainly, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement will be met with consternation from foreign leaders, as was the case when the U.S. withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol.

However, it could very well help future negotiations if other governments know that the U.S. is willing and able to resist diplomatic pressure in order to protect American interests.

4. Withdrawal is good for American energy competitiveness.

Some proponents of the Paris Agreement are saying that withdrawing presents a missed opportunity for energy companies. Others are saying that it doesn’t matter what Trump does because the momentum of green energy is too strong.

Neither argument is a compelling case for remaining in the agreement.

Whether it is conventional fuel companies or renewable ones, the best way for American energy companies to be competitive is to be innovative and competitive in the marketplace, not build their business models around international agreements.

There is nothing about leaving the agreement that prevents Americans from continuing to invest in new energy technologies.

The market for energy is $6 trillion and projected to grow by a third by 2040. Roughly 1.3 billion people do not yet have access to electricity, let alone reliable, affordable energy.

That’s a big market incentive for the private sector to pursue the next energy technology without the aid of taxpayer money.

The U.S. federal government and the international community should stop using other peoples’ money to subsidize energy technologies while regulating affordable, reliable energy sources out of existence.

The Paris Agreement was an open door for future U.S. administrations to regulate and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on international climate programs, just as the Obama administration did without any input from Congress.

Now, that door has thankfully been shut.

Truth Matters: Media Bias blacks out President Trump Memorial Day Patriotism

Truth Matters: 

Media Bias blacks out President Trump Memorial Day Patriotism

On Memorial Day, Trump Does Something That Would’ve Put Obama on Every Front Page

Joseph Curl

President Trump on Monday marked his first Memorial Day as commander in chief, heading to Arlington National Cemetery through the throngs of motorcycles participating in Rolling Thunder to place a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

The large audience packed into the cemetery’s amphitheater cheered when Trump was introduced, and the president delivered a powerful tribute to America’s fallen service members, calling them “angels sent to us by God.”

“To every Gold Star family, God is with you, and your loved ones are with him,” Trump said. “They died in wars so that we could live in peace. Every time you see the sun rise over this blessed land, please know your brave sons and daughters pushed away the night and delivered for us all that great and glorious dawn.”

Of course, you wouldn’t know that Trump did that if you looked at the top newspapers in the country. In fact, you wouldn’t even know that Monday was Memorial Day, or that nearly every town across the United States held a parade to honor America’s troops.

The New York Times didn’t have anything on its front page about Memorial Day. It used a small teaser box at the bottom left corner to tout a story about “a soccer star’s farewell to A.S. Roma,” whatever that is. Not a word or a picture dedicated to America’s military branches and their sacrifice.

The Washington Post front page was full of anti-Trump stories, “Serving Intelligence to Trump in Small Bites” and “Budget Would Cut Civil Rights Position,” to name a few. And the main art showed a factory in Kentucky, not Trump or America’s veterans. The paper, whose new motto is “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” did feature one tiny picture at the bottom of the page with a referral to the Metro page for a story about Memorial Day, but no mention or photo of Trump.

Only USA Today, among the country’s biggest papers, featured a shot of Trump laying the wreath, with a reference to an inside story and more pictures.

But above is the shot that, had former president Barack Obama done it, would’ve put him on every front page across the country. Since it was Trump, though, the country’s liberal papers decided not to print it.