A "Renewal of the American Spirit"

That is what President Trump called for in his speech to a Joint Session of Congress on 2/28/17. The speech was positive and uplifting, and for the first time in eight years I felt like I was listening to a President who truly loves this country. The speech focused primarily on domestic policy issues.

Trump started with a condemnation of "hate and evil in all its forms." Some Democrats did not see fit to applaud or stand up for that sentiment. He spoke of having an aggressive strategy to dismantle the cartels and criminal gangs in this country. I have no idea why that would not be a non-partisan issue. He talked about defending the country from "radical Islamic terrorism," three words that never left the mouth of Barack Obama during his eight years in office.

Whereas Obama spoke of wanting to "degrade and defeat" ISIS, Trump wants the DOD to develop a plan to "demolish and destroy" ISIS. He reaffirmed our support for NATO, as well for the "unbreakable bond" that exists between the United States and Israel. Trump said that he was forming an alliance with Canada to help women entrepreneurs "gain access to the "networks, markets and capital" needed to start a business.

He asked Congress to develop legislation that would fund school choice, specifically mentioning millions of African-American and Latino children. Such a proposal is not supported by the Democrats, because much of their support comes from the teachers' unions, who oppose such proposals. While this writer supports teachers, I do not feel the same about teachers' unions. Many Democrats failed to stand for much of the above proposals, which can only be a result of their ongoing attempt to undermine the Trump Presidency and effectuate a coup. (See the next post.)

More controversial was the expected proposal to repeal and replace the ACA/Obamacare. Some argue that the Republicans should simply allow Obamacare to fail on its own. However, the Republicans made a promise to the people who elected them, and now they need to follow through on that promise. Of course, Trump also talked about improving the economy and bringing back jobs and businesses. More controversial from conservatives' point of view is his plan to invest one trillion dollars on infrastructure. Also, Trump wants to rebuild our military, starting with 54 billion dollars in additional defense spending.

In one of the most moving movements of any Presidential address, Trump introduced Carryn Owens, widow of Navy Seal William "Ryan" Owens, who was killed in a recent operation in Yemen. I understand that there are people who believe that no President should bring any individual to their speeches to Congress, allowing them to tell that person's story, and in the process getting sympathy and support for the President's proposed policies. However, this brave woman was there, and it was understandably a difficult moment for her. The sacrifice made by her, her family and, of course, her husband in the service to this country was deserving of complete and total respect.

That some Democrats were unwilling to stand and show respect and support for this woman was unimaginable. That some commentators later mocked her for being "used" by Trump...well, there is something very wrong with people like that. This blog is an intellectual discussion of issues, without the use of four-letter words or name calling. (I have, rarely, said "moron.") But the people who disrespected Carryn Owens and her husband's service to our country are, simply, disgusting human beings.

Needless to say, the mainstream media was not impressed. Many did give Trump credit for having a more uplifting speech than his inaugural speech. Otherwise, total criticism. The New York Times editorial about the speech was entitled "The Missing Commander in Chief." In case you thought they would give credit to Trump for wanting to help minority children, for wanting to help women entrepreneurs and for wanting to make our country safer, well, you were dreaming. The NY Times complained that Trump did not sufficiently discuss the threat from ISIS - apparently they need more details about "demolish and destroy," but were perfectly fine with Obama's plan to "degrade and defeat." They wanted Trump to talk about Russia and China and Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria.

Let's be perfectly clear. If Trump had focused on foreign policy, the NY Times would have complained that he ignored all the social and domestic issues affecting our country. And is it not ironic that the Times is focused on foreign policy now that Obama is out of office. Obama, who told the Russians he would have more "flexibility" after his reelection, after which Putin took over the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Obama, whose Secretary of State had her ridiculous "reset" button with Russia. Obama, who drew a red line in the sand with Syria, then denied he ever did so. Obama, who prematurely withdrew American forces from Iraq, allowing for the rise of ISIS. Obama, who sold out our main Middle East ally, Israel, at the United Nations. Obama was one Commander in Chief that the country will not miss.

The Los Angeles Times had a different, albeit still critical, take on the speech. For them, Trump shifted from domestic needs to a focus on growing the military. In other words, these two news outlets looked for something they could criticize, while seeing nothing they could praise, in Trump's speech. There was one thing upon which these two papers could agree: Trump "has no clue" as to the nation's best interests (LA Times), and is "clueless" as to America's role in the world (NY Times). Actually, it was Obama who developed the "lead from behind" strategy, not believing in America's leadership role in the world. It was Trump who said "our allies will find that America is once again ready to lead." But maybe these newspapers forget. More likely, they are lacking in intellectual honesty, with their emphasis being on their left-wing agenda, not a fair and truthful analysis.