By BARBARA HOWARD
On February 28, 2017, President Donald P. Trump presented his first speech to the joint houses of Congress. To most of the pundits and his fans it was not only the best speech he had given since becoming POTUS, it was the best any president had ever given.
But there was such a mass look of anger and hatred on every Democrat’s face in the chamber you would have thought he had just run over all their beloved dogs. And their faces were frozen like that almost the entire length of the speech with only a few exceptions.
Even during the two standing ovations for the grieving widow of fallen Navy Seal William Ryan Owens, the Democrats sat on their hands. Oh, they stood initially when President Trump recognized Carryn Owens, but they immediately sat back down.
Move America Forward –“Supporting Our Troops and Their Missions in the War on Terror” commented that they thought it was Trump’s “finest moment. He was rightly thanking the widow of one of America’s heroes for the service and sacrifice her husband made for our country.”
The sole Navy Seal veteran to serve in Congress, Rep. Scott Taylor (R-Va.) said “It was the most powerful thing I have ever seen.”
Yet the response from well-known liberals Michael Moore and Bill Maher was the exact opposite. On the Chris Matthews Show on MSNBC, Moore (who has called Trump voters “legal terrorists” in a Rolling Stone interview) and Maher, slammed Trump for even having Mrs. Owens there. They referred to her as a prop which Trump used.
There were other signs of total disrespect by the Democrats during Trump’s speech.
Trump opened with saluting Black History Month and condemning “hate and evil in all of its ugly forms.” From there he spoke about issues, many supposedly close to liberals’ hearts – paid family leave, women’s health, clean air and water.
Yet nobody stood, nobody clapped – they sat with stoic expressions of disgust. All one had to do was to look at the faces of this one row of top ranking Democrats: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D – Md.), House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D – Md.) and Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn (D – S.C.). The hateful scowls said it all.
Trump preached unity and joining forces between both sides of the aisles. He called on Republicans and Democrats to work together, but Democrats wouldn’t smile nor clap.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D – N.Y.) said there was “nothing in Trump’s speech that he could support.” Rep. Joseph Crowley (D – N.Y.) called his entire agenda “Hateful and Hateful.”
Pelosi’s response was “The President’s speech was utterly disconnected from the cruel reality of his conduct.” This was as she and the rest of the Democratic women sat there dressed all in white to celebrate women’s rights. Why? What did I miss?
CNN’s poll said almost 80% of their listeners had a positive reaction to Trump’s speech, yet their news commentators gave it all negative spin. Larry Sabado said “A speech is just a speech;” yet these same liberals fawned over every speech Obama gave when he was POTUS. Even Obama’s Communist friend, Van Jones, had to admit Trump’s speech was “presidential”. One of my biggest disappointing moments was when Trump talked about education reform and saluted a young black woman, Tanisha Merriweather from Jacksonville, but the Democrats wouldn’t even stand and clap for her.
She later said on FOX News she hated going to school and failed the third grade several times. But her godmother sent her to a charter school and now she graduates with a Master’s degree in May. She agrees with former President George W. Bush that education reform is the civil rights’ issue of this century.
The Rev. H. K. Matthews says “this shouldn’t be aligned with parties and politics should not play a part.”
Tell that to Democrats, who’ve called Republicans “Irredeemable Deplorables.” After watching them behave at Trump’s speech, I wonder who’s irredeemable.
This week MAF Blogger Danny headed to the California State Capitol find out why dozens of Vietnam Veterans organizations and Vietnamese community groups gathered to protest the California Senate Leadership and demonstrate in support of Vietnam vets and their legacy.
The background: Last month the famous liberal activist and communist sympathizer Tom Hayden passed away. Hayden helped form the far left group SDS in Michigan and helped champion the progressive faction within the Democratic party that runs the DNC today. He was famously pro-communist, one of the most vitriolic critics protesting the Vietnam War, and was once married to another famous traitor Jane Fonda. Eventually Hayden was elected a State Assemblyman and later State Senator in California so after his passing the liberal-dominated California legislature held fawning speeches praising Hayden’s liberal legacy.
California State Senator Janet Nguyen came to the US as a refugee of the Vietnam War and sees Hayden as a traitor, like many in the Vietnamese community and also Vietnam war vets who had to come home from the war being spat upon by people like Hayden and “Hanoi” Jane Fonda.
When Nguyen rose to criticize Hayden’s legacy and actions regarding the Vietnam War, she was interrupted and forcibly removed from the floor by California’s Senate Leadership.
Many in the Vietnamese community took it as a personal insult that Nguyen was not allowed to speak, and that California’s Democrat Senators only wanted to praise Hayden and gloss over his treachery. So they gathered in the park of the State Capitol in protest, to support Nguyen, and stand for free speech.
I went down to the rally and saw many American flags flying alongside flags of Vietnam. Almost every man there was a veteran of the war, most of them Vietnamese but many simply there as a veteran of the war in Nam.
Tan Ngo stood behind a yellow sign that read “Vietnamese-American Community of Sacramento.” He wore a brown jacket and black beret that in honor of the unit he fought for in the army of South Vietnam. He came to the US in 1975 at the age of 24 years old and he’s been a patriot ever since. “So many American heroes fought for freedom. We want that spirit to linger. So many vets came back, they were supposed to be honored.” he told me. When I asked him whether he came to denounce Tom Hayden or support Janet Nguyen, he said “I came to speak up fro America. We support the freedom of speech. They did the wrong thing.” he said, referencing the decision to cut Nguyen’s mic and remove her from the floor.
Jesse Orta is a VFW member and commander of the Veterans Affiliated Council of Sacramento. He fought in Vietnam in the US Army infantry and attended today’s event to stand up as a Nam vet, one of a few Hispanic people I saw at the rally. I asked Jesse how he feels about the anti-war people like Fonda and Hayden today compared to during the war. “I feel no different today than 1969.” he said “They have their right [ to speak out ]. We [ veterans ] our country called on us and we did nothing more than answer that call. We did our duty to protect Freedom of Speech even for the [expletive]-holes”. Orta said he was angry with California’s leadership for shutting down a viewpoint they did not agree with. “You should not deny to anyone their freedom of speech just because you don’t want any opposing views. We need to share this information. We [Americans] are losing our willingness to stand up for what we know is right.”
Richard Bui Jr. was one of the organizers of the event. He’s now 65 but he served in the US Army in the Vietnam War 1972-1975. Richard had family in Vietnam who he was fighting for, but lost them after the war. He told me that in his view the Democrats don’t appreciate the severity of Hayden’s treachery. “To my opinion, they don’t understand what Jane Fonda and her husband did. Jane Fonda was given a letter pleading for help from so many Vietnamese and she handed it over to the to the Vietcong. The Vietcong went after those people.”
As one of the organizers of the rally Capitol officials came out and spoke with Richard Bui and told him that his people could not fly their flags on Capital property. Citing some obscure regulation that I have never seen, Richard was told that the flags had to be made of wood only, and because they were on PVC the flags were illegal and couldn’t be flown. Richard shared this information with me and we both agreed that we’ve seen protests flying flags at the capitol many times before and it seems highly strange that the Capitol staff were enforcing this weird rule at this event but seemingly not at others. But to their credit, rather than get angry, the protesters respectfully rolled up their flags and continued on without them. When the left protests, they are never so compliant, there would have been a backlash which we’ve seen many times when visiting protest organized by Code Pink, ANSWER coalition, World Can’t Wait and other far-left groups.
Wayne Le was only 7 years old when he came the US. His father was friends with some American soldiers in the war and with their help got 5 of his immediate family and 24 other friends and family out of Vietnam before the fall. He said, “We demonstrate because Janet is the highest elected Vietnamese person to represent our community. Even though she was younger than me when she left Vietnam, I wanted to let her know that she’s not alone. What they did, cutting her off, saying she was out of order, I don’t understand that. I am a registered Democrat but I’m going to support her.”
Now here’s some more photos from the event!
On #presidentsday 2017 MAF posted a series of pictures to Twitter celebrating American Presidents through the years who served our military. It’s our spin on President’s Day; a day to honor all our Presidents, but we wanted to give a special recognition for those POTUS who served in the military before becoming Commander-in-Chief.
You might be surprised how many POTUS with military service we’ve had!
SACRAMENTO, CA (WTOL) –
Volunteers in Sacramento are having a huge packing party today to give packages to troops worldwide.
Move America Forward just finished a campaign to raise money in support of the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit. Now they have to get their goods overseas.
For 5 hours, volunteers are packing up care packages and preparing them for the post office to deliver.
These packages include everything from Girl Scout cookies and gourmet coffee to toothbrushes and toothpaste. They also include messages of support from donors thanking troops for their service.
MAF’s next project will kick off their Easter push, helping troops during the holiday.
Find out how you can get involved.
Alisa is meeting up with Scott Raab, the outreach director and Navy veteran of MoveAmericaForward.org. Raab explains how much care packages mean to soldiers overseas because many of them often feel forgotten about. They plan on packing and sending 500-600 personal packages.
by John Bolton
July 26, 2015
President Obama has made an art form of attacking his opponents rather than substantively defending his own policies, most recently regarding the Vienna agreement on Iran’s nuclear program. Essentially, Obama argues that we must either accept his wretched deal or go to war to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
As is typical, Obama posits the wrong choice, apparently to distract from the unpleasant reality that the agreement won’t work. It will not prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. So the real choice we are faced with is dealing with the consequences of military action or the consequences of a nuclear Iran. Neither is palatable, but the latter is far worse. If the real objective is stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, preemptive military action is now inescapable.
This rock-and-hard-place outcome has long been foreseeable. Iran’s dogged determination to become a nuclear-weapons state was fiercer and stronger than the West’s frail response. Assuming Iran scrupulously complies with every provision agreed to in Vienna — an absurdly unlikely scenario given the ayatollahs’ objectives and history — its ambitions for nuclear weapons will simply have been delayed eight to 10 years.
In all likelihood, the ayatollahs are already at work violating the accords. After all, Iran has systematically breached its voluntarily-assumed obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for more than 30 years. Now the president’s deal will allow Iran to keep the fruits of its violations. Yes, the deal includes restrictions on uranium enrichment, but Tehran can retain its enrichment program, with guaranteed international assistance in improving it. These concessions are fatal mistakes.
Moreover, Iran’s ballistic missile efforts — its development of the means to deliver nuclear weapons all over the world — will barely be touched. Nor does the deal in any way address Iran’s clandestine weaponization efforts, which it has denied and hidden from the International Atomic Energy Agency with great skill.
Last week, the news that the administration has not even seen the texts of two agreements between the energy agency and Iran, both crucial to implementation of the Vienna accords, only raises further doubts. President Obama must provide the texts of these “side deals” to Congress before any serious consideration of the overall agreement is possible.
Some critics of Obama’s plan advocate scuttling the deal and increasing economic sanctions against Iran instead. They are dreaming. Iran and the United States’ negotiating partners have already signed the accords and are straining at their leashes to implement them. There will be no other “better deal.” Arguments about what Obama squandered or surrendered along the way are therefore fruitless. As for sanctions, they were already too weak to prevent Iran’s progress toward the bomb, and they will not be reset now. To paraphrase Bruce Springsteen, “These sanctions are going boys, and they ain’t coming back.”
Patrick Clawson, the director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, provided the most recent thumbs-down assessment of sanctions: “Iran has muddled through the shock of the sanctions imposed in 2012, and its structural [economic] problems are not particularly severe compared to those of other countries.” He estimates Iran’s nuclear and terrorism-support programs to cost only about $10 billion annually. No wonder administration officials have testified that sanctions (including those imposed piecemeal before 2012) did not slow Iran’s nuclear efforts.
Nor will the deal’s “snapback” mechanism (intended to coerce Iran back into compliance if it breaches its obligations) change that reality. Tehran’s belligerent response is expressly stated in the agreement’s text: “If sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments … in whole or in part.” Tehran does risk losing some future economic benefits should sanctions snap back, but by then it will have already cashed in the assets the deal unfreezes and signed new lucrative trade and investment contracts.
Once those benefits begin flowing all around, the pressure on world governments will only increase to ignore Iranian violations, or to treat them as minor or inadvertent, certainly not warranting the reimposition of major sanctions. The ayatollahs have dusted off Lenin’s barb that “the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them,” and applied it to the age of nuclear proliferation.
If diplomacy and sanctions have failed to stop Iran, diplomacy alone will fail worse. Like it or not, we now face this unpleasant reality: Iran probably will violate the deal; it may not be detected doing so and if detected, it will not be deterred by “snapback” sanctions. So we return to the hard question: Are we prepared to do what will be necessary to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons?
Obama most certainly is not, which means the spotlight today is on Israel.
If Israel strikes, there will be no general Middle East war, despite fears to the contrary. We know this because no general war broke out when Israel attacked Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in 1981, or when it attacked the North Korean-built Syrian reactor in 2007. Neither Saudi Arabia nor other oil-producing monarchies wanted those regimes to have nuclear weapons, and they certainly do not want Iran to have them today.
However, Iran may well retaliate. At that point, Washington must be ready to immediately resupply Israel for losses incurred by its armed forces in the initial attack, so that Israel will still be able to effectively counter Tehran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, which will be its vehicles for retaliation. The United States must also provide muscular political support, explaining that Israel legitimately exercised its inherent right of self-defense. Whatever Obama’s view, public and congressional support for Israel will be overwhelming.
American weakness has brought us to this difficult moment. While we obsessed about its economic discomfort, Iran wore its duress with pride. It was never an even match. We now have to rely on a tiny ally to do the job for us. But unless we are ready to accept a nuclear Iran (and, in relatively short order, several other nuclear Middle Eastern states), get ready. The easy ways out disappeared long ago.
John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook
“Move Forward America,” a grassroots pro-troop organization, sent 650 care packages to troops over seas.
In additions to treats and personal care items, the packages contain messages of support, thanking troops for their service.
Roughly 10,000 American troops are still serving or training in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Group leaders say this is the first major shipment to those troops since the “Troop-a-thon Fundraiser” back in June.
Originally Posted at: http://fox40.com/2015/07/24/hundreds-of-care-packages-assembled-for-troops/
ISIS has just released a new propaganda video, a cartoon depiction of ISIS jihadists capturing and beheading President Barack Hussein Obama! The video is translated by MEMRI, a research organization that monitors and translates media from all over the Muslim world focusing on exposing propaganda that supports terrorist and anti-semitic ideology.
Hat tip goes to Pamela Geller for giving us a heads up. Go here to her blog for more commentary.
You have to wonder what ISIS has against Obama…I mean sure he has bombed them a little bit here and there, but not enough to hurt them and I guarantee it’s far less than the shock and awe they would have got if Bush was still president.
ISIS really ought to be grateful, they owe their very existence to President Obama. If he had not first, pulled U.S. troops out of Iraq and then chosen to stay completely out of the Syria civil war, ISIS would not even exist. Nor would they hold so much territory in Eastern Syria and huge parts of Iraq today.
Great news coming out today, as Congress finally stood up to Obama and passed legislation which would require Obama to allow the Senate to review the full text of his proposed agreement with Iran, and also preventing Obama from promising sanction-relief to the Iranians until AFTER the requirements are met. It potentially opens the door for Congress to kill the deal altogether, by holding up sanction relief.
Republican opponents of the nuclear agreement on the committee sided with Mr. Obama’s strongest Democratic supporters in demanding a congressional role as international negotiators work to turn this month’s nuclear framework into a final deal by June 30. The bill would mandate that the administration send the text of a final accord, along with classified material, to Congress as soon as it it completed. It also halts any lifting of sanctions during a congressional review and culminates in a possible vote to allow or forbid the lifting of congressionally imposed sanctions in exchange for the dismantling of much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. It passed 19 to 0.
President Obama said he will likely sign the bill, which seems to be a surrender on his part. During his State of the Union address, President Obama promised to veto any legislation that might throw a wrench into his Iran negotiations, such as new sanctions. While this bill is not extra sanctions, it does hurt Obama by tying his hands on sanction relief.
The fact that Obama isn’t going to veto this bill, or even fight it, shows that maybe Obama has had enough of a PR beating over his Iran deal. Democrats and Republicans have joined forces to oppose Obama and stop him from simply giving away concessions to the Iranians.
We still don’t know how bad his final proposal with Iran might be, but at least now Congress will have the right to review that deal. It’s not a total defeat for Obama’s bad deal with Iran but it’s a step in the right direction.
Not long after Liberals literally lost their minds over Tom Cotton’s open letter and the 47 Republican Senators who signed onto it. Now a bipartisan group in the House of Representatives, which including many Democrats (at least 120) who previously attacked Cotton, has done pretty much the same thing.
Washington (CNN) A veto-proof, bipartisan majority of House lawmakers have signed an open letter to President Barack Obama warning him that any nuclear deal with Iran will effectively require congressional approval for implementation.
A group of bipartisan senators have penned a bill mandating that any deal be reviewed and approved by Congress, but the House letter notes that lawmakers have another way to halt an agreement — by refusing to roll back sanctions.
“Should an agreement with Iran be reached, permanent sanctions relief from congressionally-mandated sanctions would require new legislation. In reviewing such an agreement, Congress must be convinced that its terms foreclose any pathway to a bomb, and only then will Congress be able to consider permanent sanctions relief,” they write.
The letter, which was signed by 367 members of the House and released Monday by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, follows a similar one, issued to Iran’s leaders and signed by 47 Republican senators, warning that any deal with Iran could be rolled back by a future president.
That letter sparked fierce criticism from Democrats, who said it was inappropriate meddling in delicate diplomatic talks and meant to undermine negotiations, and even some Republicans expressed reservations over the tactic.
CNN March 23, 2015
Though some might say this letter is different because X, Y, Z, they are not any different. The spirit is the same in both – a statement of fact that President Obama must seek the approval of Congress or his deal with Iran will never see the light of day.
Democrats jumped all over Cotton for his letter, but their recognition of the truth now just proves that they were going after him because they saw an opportunity to score some political points. They were successful in getting the media machine to attack Cotton for his leadership on the Iran issue, but underneath the politics, many Dems knew Cotton was right and that’s why they signed onto this new letter.