Trump Speaks at Davos to the American People

Salim Mansur

21 hrs · 

On the second day of hearing of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, it was reported that Senator Dianne Feinstein of California left early in the evening the Senate Chamber where Democratic House Managers were presenting the case for removal of the President.

Senator Feinstein is the Ranking Democratic Senator in the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, which is now chaired by the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina.

It was not reported that Senator Feinstein had taken ill given her age, she is 87 years old. It was only reported she simply walked out of the Chamber for a waiting car with chauffeur that then drove her away.

It is likely instead that Senator Feinstein was driven to fatigue listening to her House Democratic friends present their case full of sound and fury signifying nothing in it as impeachable “crime or misdemeanor”, which require the nullification of the votes of more than 63 million Americans in 2016 for Donald Trump and the removal of the 45th President from the White House.

While Senator Feinstein and her Senatorial colleagues have been sort of locked in as jury to hear the impeachment trial of the sitting President, he was an ocean and a continent away in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the annual World Economic Forum.

President Trump spoke to the gathered guests of politicians and business leaders, and celebrities from the academia, the arts, and the media about how in three years his administration has Made America Great Again. The economy is booming, stock markets are on record high, investments are once again driving the job market to full employment, new trade deals have been signed, trade deficits are shrinking, America has become a net exporter of oil and gas and, as Ronald Reagan would say, “it is morning in America.”

The annual January gathering in Davos is a jamboree for the Globalists.

It will not be a stretch to imagine that President Trump’s speech was a stake through the hearts of the assembled “who’s who” of the Globalists paying homage at one of the temples of Globalism.

There was present, of course, the secular saint of the fake religion of climate change, Greta Thurnberg, while President Trump informed the assembled audience,

“To protect our security and our economy, we are also boldly embracing American energy independence. The United States is now, by far, the number-one producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world, by far. It’s not even close.”

Then, more:

“With U.S. companies and researchers leading the way, we are on the threshold of virtually unlimited reserves of energy, including from traditional fuels, LNG, clean coal, next-generation nuclear power, and gas hydrate technologies.”

And then he went on to say (and I can imagine with a twinkle in his eyes),

“At the same time, I’m proud to report the United States has among the cleanest air and drinking water on Earth — and we’re going to keep it that way. And we just came out with a report that, at this moment, it’s the cleanest it’s been in the last 40 years. We’re committed to conserving the majesty of God’s creation and the natural beauty of our world.”

The question obviously staring at us, Canadians, when we pay close attention ourselves to what President Trump and his administration is saying to Americans and the people around the world, instead of what the corporate mainstream media reports, is why Canadians are being impoverished and Canada degraded by the “establishment elite”?

And how do we get to elect such utter mediocrity, as Justin Trudeau and his coat-hangers, to rule over us?

The answer is also obvious, but many of us are fearful to say it publicly. Political correctness has become the noose around our necks.

We have to unconditionally repudiate Globalism and the Globalist agenda packaged through the UN, which all our political parties in the parliament (except for the PPC) have servilely bought into.

But we cannot do this unless we have our own version of make Canada great again, and restore pride in our history and culture.

And for this to occur, we need to revoke multiculturalism as both ideology and policy, and lower the scale of open immigration to a sustainable number that the PPC proposed during the 2019 election as a starter for public discussion.

We fail to do this and by the middle of this century Canada, as those who may recall how Canada used to be when the centenary year was celebrated, will be irrevocably lost.

Here is Conrad Black’s report on President Donald Trump at Davos earlier this week.

There was considerable irony and some drama in President Donald Trump’s excursion to Davos on Jan. 21 as the contemptible charade of an impeachment trial began in the U.S. Senate.

Davos is the epitome of everything Trump considers suspect in the world that is yet within the West and essentially a democratic and capitalist institution. It’s an international meeting in a nondescript and inconvenient little Swiss mountain city of unusually little aesthetic merit for the Alps.

It’s frequented in approximately equal numbers by social-climbing networker-hustlers, groupies, and some adroit dual-taskers who are both, and also by fervent internationalists who see all meetings involving even two people of different nationality as a step toward world government and the abolition of nations, religions, and anything that makes groups of people and ultimately individuals readily distinguishable from each other.

For the first group, Trump is the world’s greatest celebrity and foremost capitalist, and his presence among them lent some importance and enhancement of status to them and to any meeting so distinguishedly attended.

For the second group, the true believers in world homogenization, Trump’s presence could, with an Olympic-scale stretch of the imagination, be construed as Henry IV (Holy Roman emperor) coming to Canossa (1077) and standing (literally) in the snow to pay homage, if not do penance, before the supreme totem of internationalism, (in the original version, Pope Gregory VII).

To the first group, the presence of the world’s greatest officeholder was symbolically and emblematically pleasing, a cubit of enhanced status; to the second, it was galling and disquieting. Practically every public policy, every canon of international relations, every precept of international assistance and environmental enlightenment revered at Davos, was rubbed into their faces (verbally, of course) like a cigarette butt.

Economic Success

Trump was even more casual and underwhelmed by the surroundings than he usually is, other than when he is haranguing tens of thousands of MAGA hat-wearing followers cheering his every sentence anywhere in the United States between New York and Washington and Los Angeles and Seattle (except Chicago).

His remarks at Davos were agreeably reminiscent of his inaugural address almost exactly three years before, and must presage his approach to his electors later this year. He emphasized again and again what he had done for lower-income groups in America: the sharp decline in food stamp use and statistical poverty, the decrease of unemployment and increase in the workforce, and the swifter gains of the disadvantaged over the (still appreciable) gains of upper-income groups.

Though he didn’t present it in this light, he highlighted the only progress the democratic world has made in turning back the ever-steepening income gap. He went to some, and as always with him rather amusing, lengths to disparage the academic and journalistic “experts.” (This would include at least 75 percent of his live audience.)

He made it clear that he was no enemy of the rich, but that they would take good care of themselves. He was doing what, he said, had motivated him to enter public life in the first place: to end policies that victimized American working- and middle-class people and families, such as free-trade deals that effectively exported jobs to the world and imported unemployment into the United States.

Some of his statistics reminded his audience that the United States operates on a scale the world had never imagined to be possible and has done so for over a century, such as when he mentioned that U.S. stock exchanges had added $19 trillion of value in the three years of his presidency.

The decrease of unemployment and nearly 5 percent annual gains in income for the lower quarter of the U.S. income scale and a host of similar facts and statistics rolled over the blank faces of his audience as he reeled them off, fluently but with a complete absence of any attempt at theatrics.

The sub-text, and the balloon above him if it were presented in a cartoon, was: “I told you I would do this when I was here two years ago and I did.”

Debunked Climate Alarmism

They sat stone-faced and unresponsive. The only applause, apart from the beginning and the end, was when he said the United States was happy to join the 1 Trillion Tree initiative. His several amusing lines, apparently improvised as is his custom, elicited no response, such as when he referred mockingly to the absurd practice of negative-interest lending: he said that would have suited him perfectly—he was greeted by the oblivious expressionlessness of the German Swiss at almost all times.

For good measure, Trump debunked the climate theories of which Davos has been one of the great propagators. No one has been a more faithful echo chamber for the ecological militants than the business community of Western Europe. It was a cause they could embrace while laying most of the cost of it on the public sector, and it enabled them to march in unison with organized labor, the bourgeoisie, the academics, and the left.

This was social democracy, the social market, the ultimate compromise—welcome the lion of the ecological left into the tent, then it won’t devour us. Trump batted it away as the pusillanimous, deracinated, innumerate Euro-flim-flam that it is. “I love the environment,” he said ingenuously, but dismissed climate alarmists as charlatans, cowards, and poseurs (without using any of those words, but his gist was clear).

Trump spoke warmly of Chinese leader Xi Jinping, admiringly of the great European cultural heritage—citing especially the cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris—and invoked God tastefully and in passing several times, to an audience that most of whom would like to transform the world’s houses of worship into workshops for the unjudgmental discussion of psychoses, anger management, and the art of submission to regulators.

Preview of Election Strategy

Trump’s Davos speech was what was called a century ago “a great state paper.” It updated his inaugural address (which George W. Bush whispered to Hillary Clinton was “some weird [expletive]”).

It also gave his opponents notice of his reelection strategy: I have saved the disadvantaged of America, reassured the great middle class of America, and have shown the limousine liberal wealthy how to share the wealth without losing any of it. He touched every electoral base with any votes on it, and he invited the Democratic impeachers—by his colossal indifference to their puling and squalling—to do unmentionable things with their endless, spurious, and pseudo-moralistic harassments of him.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) are playing in sandboxes and the Trump-haters are milling nervously about reciting witless epithets, while Trump leads the rampaging army of his supporters over the walls and to the top of the commanding heights of U.S. government, like the Marines at Mount Suribachi 75 years ago.

The Davos-goers didn’t understand any of it, but Trump wasn’t addressing his message to them; they were straight-men—unpaid plants in the theater. The American people are the jury, and they will bring down their verdict in 285 days.

Conrad Black has been one of Canada’s most prominent financiers for 40 years, and was one of the leading newspaper publishers in the world. He is the author of authoritative biographies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, and, most recently, “Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other.”

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-speaks-at-davos-to-the-american-people_3212385.html?fbclid=IwAR1K5pKi38IOd4w6pDcKqXGuy0minXTrSmTD0LSxMlLj6nsu7bvPBiIJlJA

Pence's office denies Prince Charles 'snub' after video posted online

Arwen~ Of course Pence was not snubbed, that behaviour is the antithesis of who the monarchy are. It is mind boggling how fast offense spreads, and very few check it out for themselves. “Proud American” ‘s video and false narrative is spreading like wildfire, unhinging both the right and left. Why are people so quick to believe and condemn? Our current climate is rife with offense and accusations.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/vice-presidents-office-denies-he-was-snubbed-by-prince-charles?fbclid=IwAR0NAxmv4yBm53zScTvQBHnYequXygZUF_EnmKMgjlo1vQqiRS3qmtcPQJE

MAGNITUDE OF THE HOLOCAUST “DEFIES COMPREHENSION” AND WE MUST “HEED ITS LESSONS” SAYS HRH PRINCE CHARLES AS HE JOINS WORLD LEADERS IN JERUSALEM FOR HOLOCAUST COMMEMORATION

HRH Prince Charles has said today that the “magnitude of the genocide that was visited upon the Jewish people defies comprehension” as he joins world leaders in Jerusalem to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Prince Charles elaborated, saying: “The scale of the evil was so great, the impact so profound, that it threatens to obscure the countless individual, human stories of tragedy, loss and suffering of which it was comprised. That is why places like [Yad Vashem] and events like this are so vitally important.”

The Prince of Wales revealed that it has been a “singular privilege” for him to have met so many Holocaust survivors who came to the UK and made immeasureable contributions, noting that, as fewer and fewer of them are among us, “we must commit ourselves to ensuring that their stories live on.” He also noted the propriety of holding the commemorative event in Israel, where so many survivors made their home.

He also reflected on his “immense pride” in his grandmother, Princess Alice of Greece, who saved a Jewish family in 1943 by hiding them in her home. She is buried on the Mount of Olives, has a tree in her name at Yad Vashem and is counted among the Righteous of the Nations, “a fact,” he said, “that gives me and my family immense pride.”

We “compound” the “tragedy” of the Holocaust, the Prince explained, “if we do not heed its lessons.” He therefore urged: “On this day, in this place, and in memory of the millions who perished in the Shoah [the Holocaust], let us recommit ourselves to tolerance and respect, and to ensuring that those who lived through this darkness will forever, as in the words of the prophet Isiah, ‘be a light unto the nations’ to guide the generations that follow.

The full speech can be watched below.

The speech, which incorporated numerous references to biblical and rabbinic writings, was part of an event titled “Remembering the Holocaust, Fighting Antisemitism,” was organised by the World Holocaust Forum Foundation and Yad Vashem, Israel’s National Holocaust Memorial, under the auspices of the President of Israel. Also in attendance were the President and Prime Minister of Israel, the Presidents of Germany, Russia and France, and the Vice-President of the United States, among others, making it the largest diplomatic gathering in Israel’s history.

The purpose of the event, President Rivlin explained, was to “think about how to pass on Holocaust remembrance to generations who will live in a world without survivors, and what steps we must take to ensure the safety and security of Jews — all around the world.”

Arwen~ Pls. click on link below to watch Prince Charles full speech

Rex Murphy: Time was elections decided things. Apparently Trump's foes think they know better

The campaign to impeach Trump is the losing party’s effort to nullify the election. Impeachment is nothing more than politics by other means


Rex Murphy
January 21, 2020

“Tis all in pieces. All coherence gone.” — John Donne: An Anatomy of the World

The second act of the long-running and fretfully plotted Donald Trump impeachment melodrama is on. The networks are full of it. The clack of punditry is at full volume. It’s historic, says Nancy Pelosi, and then as suits an infallibly historic occasion, hands out souvenir pens, and to certify its solemnity, goes on Bill Maher’s talk show. I suppose if the same atmospherics were the rule nearly 80 years ago, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have found a Stephen Colbert, and gone on his show to deliver the Pearl Harbor speech.

It’s better, I weakly suppose, to have this propped up drama to stare at for a while, than to continue to be pummelled with the endless, breathless bulletins on the Harry and Meghan show, with the updates on the Queen’s agony, the melancholy of Prince Charles, the rift with Prince William, and all the contortions of a kind of confected Downton Abbey being played out in the tabloids and the serious press.

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) arrives to speak at a press conference about President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, on Jan. 21, 2020, in Washington, D.C. Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images

Of the Trump impeachment I have no intention to delve into its serpentine and protracted career. My baseline on it is very plain. It’s the permanent campaign syndrome, with which in the late 20th century and the beginning of this new one, we have become so familiar. Time was elections decided things. The people spoke. The parties involved accepted the people’s word. Opposition to government came in the form of criticisms of the government’s conduct and policies, but the legitimacy of an electoral victory was never — or rarely — put in contest.

The vote decided who governed, as it decided who opposed, until the next election, and barring some serious upheaval or blatant corruption — the “high crimes and misdemeanours” cited in the constitution —an elected president was permitted to function.

However, since the days of Richard Nixon, that no longer applies. Campaigns never stop. And in more recent days the outlets and channels through which politics are conducted have become far more numerous, more immediate, and never ceasing. Twenty-four-hour television, the emergence of Twitter and its mobs, the vast swelling of hyper partisanship, and the deplorable trend of major media taking on activist roles, has utterly changed the nature of politics.

Staff members carry boxes of binders to the office of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) office at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 21, 2020, in Washington, D.C. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The most significant change however is the decline in the respect of the electoral process itself. The vote does not settle things.

Donald Trump is presumed to be a unique case. The losers, Hillary Clinton’s hard-core managers, have never accepted he won, or could have won by means other than some fantasy of theirs that Russia engineered his victory. This kind of thinking would never be applied in the opposite case.

I will state it as an inarguable proposition that if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency, and despite the real animosity of hardline Republicans to the idea of her winning, there would not have been days after marches protesting the election; not an immediate call for her removal; not a collective massing to oppose and “resist” her victory from Day One.

The most significant change is the decline in the respect of the electoral process itself

Republicans would have been furious and they would have been depressed, but they would never — in the absence of inconvertible and demonstrable proof of genuine electoral fraud — sought her expulsion from the office she had won.

The fundamental dynamic of the effort to impeach Trump has been there from the day after the election — and that dynamic is best expressed by the simple formulations: the right people knew that the wrong person won. Not that he won wrongly. But that the people made a bad choice, and their betters, one way or the other, were going to fix it. From this was born the hilariously inflated idea of the “Resistance” — as if America was France under the Nazis. And the noxious Antifa and its street-rough brethren.

U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan during a meeting at the 50th World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 21, 2020. Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

The Trump impeachment is so very like the response to Britain’s referendum vote on leaving the European Union. That too, to the losers, had the same dynamic: the right people thought the wrong side had won, and they were determined, by delay, obstruction, and sermonizing, to overthrow it. They almost did.

The current impeachment campaign, which has been going on now for more than three years, is no more or no less than the continuous campaign — the losing party’s effort to nullify the general vote; impeachment is a blanket thrown over politics as (desperately) usual.

It is a tactic called up to answer the question: what’s the best way to wound Trump and hamstring his presidency (and if we’re lucky actually get rid of him before the first term runs out)? It didn’t arise from a constitutional emergency. It misused the tool for a genuine constitutional emergency to play resistance politics. Impeachment is nothing more than, to vary the old phrase of a military philosopher, politics by other means.

There is a democratic way to determine if Trump ‘is the wrong person’ to have won. And it is available

There is a democratic way to determine if Trump “is the wrong person” to have won. And it is available. This is an election year in the U.S. The arguments and allegations against him have been heard ad nauseam. Why not leave the determination of his fitness for office for the November vote? Or is it now the progressive position, that the people shouldn’t be exposed to a second chance of making “the same mistake?”

Finally, there is a great irony brewing. I fully expect the obsessive efforts to delegitimize Trump will add greatly to his campaign appeal for a second term.

After Senseless Murder Of Goliath, Philistines Call For Ban On Fully Automatic, High-Capacity Slings

January 21st, 2020

VALLEY OF ELAH—After local homegrown terrorist David slew Goliath with a fully automatic, high-capacity sling, Philistine activists began calling for common-sense bans on the dangerous weapons of mass destruction.

“Nobody needs a sling that holds five rocks just to go hunting or protect their sheep,” said one Philistine woman with pink hair and several face piercings. “This tragedy could have been avoided if only David were forced to use one of the old bolt-action model slings.”

Investigators believe the shepherd boy, radicalized by religious texts, built up an arsenal of approximately five hollow-point, armor-piercing rocks, “a deadly stockpile.”

“Can you imagine if he had opened fire in a crowded market or around the village well?”

Many Philistines offered “thoughts and prayers” to Dagon, but activists continue to insist “your thoughts and prayers are not enough.”

https://babylonbee.com/news/after-senseless-murder-of-goliath-philistines-call-for-common-sense-sling-control?fbclid=IwAR2Gxm_1zhcgwMwty_ZbOCr5f0ti7YTiv2NamAmlZY-9Ub8hnXMMzpo2D_0

LAURENCE FOX FACES DOWN THE IDIOT BULLIES OF WOKEDOM. BRAVO!

FoxBritainCulture wars

LAURENCE FOX FACES DOWN THE IDIOT BULLIES OF WOKEDOM. BRAVO!

MELANIELAURENCE FOXMARTIN LUTHER KINGQUESTION TIMERACISM

The day after I posted this blog explaining why virtue-signalling “anti-racists” were the real racists in our society, the actor Laurence Fox performed the astonishing feat of going on BBC Question Time and not behaving like an actor. That is to say, he expressed views which were sensible, reasoned and moderate – and thus brought the usual pitchfork-waving mob down on his head.

In reply to audience member Rachael Boyle, a beyond-satire lecturer in woke studies who said criticism of Meghan Markle was racist and Fox was guilty of white privilege, he said it was obviously not and he obviously wasn’t.

He mocked the arrogance of actors hectoring everyone else about climate change. Asked how he could possibly have said that Keir Starmer was the most plausible candidate to lead the Labour party when four women were standing against him, he writhed in despair and said sarcastically, “any one of the women then, is that better”?

The audience groaned at the woke lecturer and repeatedly applauded Fox with enthusiasm and something akin to joy. Suddenly we caught a flash of the silent majority’s deep irritation and contempt towards these third-rate thought-police of identity politics.

Twitter, of course, went into meltdown. The character assassins of the media went into immediate overdrive, hurling at Fox the dread epithet “far-right” – the stigma of intellectual leprosy that’s applied to anyone who dares challenge any left-wing position, in order to drive them out of acceptable society and terrify everyone else into shunning them.

Fox has reacted to all this with notable aplomb. In response to the frenzy of abuse and threats against him he’s been doubling down, appearing on various radio shows and podcasts where he’s been expanding on his views with gusto. On Twitter, he posted an anti-woke song he had written with the cheery recommendation to send it to social justice warriors. He has seemed to be enjoying himself.

But of course there’s a deeply sinister side to the reaction. There always is. At the actors’ union Equity, its minority ethnic members’ committee tweeted that fellow actors should “unequivocally denounce” Fox for his comments. This effective attempt to ruin him was so jaw-droppingly Stalinist that the union then had second thoughts and deleted the tweets – only for the committee chairman to accuse it of “chucking its minority members under the bus”.

Er…the only individual who was threatened with being thus chucked under a bus was Laurence Fox, at the hands of the culture thugs of Equity.

There was one exchange, though, which was particularly notable for its further demonstration that those who wear their much-vaunted “anti-racism” on their sleeves have no idea what racism actually is.

Fox posted on Twitter the famous quote by Martin Luther King who declared in 1963: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character”. Fox commented: “This is the position I took last night and I live by in life”.

This, said the Question Time lecturer, Rachel Boyle – who had previously tweeted piteously: “This work isn’t easy. Being a Black academic researching race and ethnicity isn’t easy. Having conversations with ill informed privileged people isn’t easy. But THIS is what I came to do” – had left her “speechless”.

She recovered her powers of speech sufficiently to say: “I thought how can you conflate what you said to me, your viewpoint, your position, with the views of a civil rights activist who was shot and killed”.

Oh dear. The answer, of course, is that what Fox was saying was indeed precisely what Martin Luther King was saying – and that the person who was judging people by the colour of their skin rather than the content of their character was not Laurence Fox but her.

Fox has dealt with his tormentors by laughing at them and exposing their ineffable stupidity with considerable wit and panache. He has reminded us all that the only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them and face them down. The reason identity politics has claimed so many victims is that too many people with zero courage have allowed this to happen without challenge.

Bravo, Laurence Fox. And stay safe.