The Rasmussen Reports polling firm, which is known for accuracy, stated on September 24 that president Trump’s approval has risen to a whopping 53%. This comes after more than four full years of media attacks on the president like we have never seen before in history.
Meanwhile the same Rasmussen poll reported that Obama’s approval rating at the same point in his presidency in September 2011 was just 46% after years of totally favorable media coverage. And Obama was re-elected in 2012 by a significant margin.
Nikitas3.com predicted throughout 2016, and as far back as 2011, that Trump was going to win the White House despite all biased media polls (CNN, NBC, New York Times, etc.) showing him losing by a wide margin.
Don’t believe the Fake News media polls that show Trump with approval ratings around 40% or less. These polls are as biased and rigged as the Fake News media itself.
Nikitas3.com believes that Trump won because there is a huge “hidden” vote for the president, that Trump does not poll well and that many people won’t admit to a pollster that they support him. Yet they would vote for him when they are in the privacy of the polling booth.
This group was named The Silent Majority by president Richard Nixon.
Thus Nikitas3.com already is predicting a solid Trump re-election victory in 2020, and very possibly a landslide win.
Pollster John McLaughlin reported this Summer that Americans want Trump re-elected by a 51-38 margin. And with Democrats more and more likely to pick the extremist Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren as their nominee it looks like Trump is going to do very well in 2020.
This would be a repeat of 1972 when Democrats picked far-left US senator George McGovern to challenge sitting Republican president Richard Nixon, whom the media also hated. Many top Democrats warned that McGovern could never win, and Nixon went on to win 49 out of 50 states in the Electoral College (only Massachusetts went for McGovern…)
White House Daily Press Briefings are Ended
For as long as Nikitas3.com can remember the White House has held so-called ‘daily press briefings’. These are the media events in a windowless room in the White House where journalists sit crammed together in rows of folding chairs and they pepper the presidential press secretary with questions about issues of the day.
Since the election of president Trump, however, these so-called “journalists” like April Ryan and Jim Acosta of CNN were using the briefings to grandstand on camera and to gin up acrimony at the president, his press secretary and his administration.
Well, the ‘daily press briefing’ is a thing of the past for the Trump administration. And Nikitas3.com says good riddance to it. The Washington Times recently reported:
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham confirmed Monday daily press briefings will not be reinstated under her leadership, citing the behavior of journalists who “weren’t being good to” President Trump’s administration.
During an appearance on Fox & Friends, Ms. Grisham said briefings would not be returning “right now” and wouldn’t come back unless the president felt they were necessary.
“He’s doing just fine,” she said. “And to be honest, the briefings have become a lot of theater and I think a lot of reporters were doing it to get famous. They’re writing books now, they’re all getting famous off of this presidency.”
“They weren’t being good to (the Trump) people,” Ms. Grisham continued. “(President Trump) doesn’t like that. He is very loyal to his people and he put a stop to it.”
Members of the White House press corps have gone 195 days without an official press briefing.
Once a daily occurrence, the briefings were slowly phased out and eventually stopped completely under previous press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
After Ms. Grisham took over, she said she’d be open to reinstating press briefings but said it’s “up to the president.”
Despite this, Ms. Grisham lauded the president’s accessibility by giving Oval Office pressers and scrums outside his chopper.
“He is his own best spokesperson, that’s true, and the most successful president in history as all of the media knows,” she said.
This last sentence is the most important one. President Trump is actually more accessible to the press and more willing than any other president in modern history to talk to the press and give his opinions. So that certainly compensates more than enough for the lack of a daily press briefing.
‘Climate’ Girl Goes on Wild Rant
The Swedish teenage ‘climate’ activist Greta Thunberg has been made into an international celebrity by the global media in the space of just one year. This is no surprise. The media created such a child monster once before and also on the political left.
Samantha Smith was the 10-year-old girl from Maine who wrote a letter in 1982 to Soviet communist dictator Yuri Andropov suggesting international peace. She immediately was turned into a media sensation as Andropov responded and invited her to his “worker’s paradise”… where even bread was in short supply.
Over the next three years Smith became a media darling for suggesting accommodation of the communists, instead of confrontation. But she died in a plane crash on August 25, 1985. Naturally leftists in the US suspected foul play but it was just an accident.
Today we have this 16-year-old Swedish ‘climate’ activist Greta Thunberg all over the global media. This female has been programmed by her militant handlers to say the most extreme things. Here are some of her recent crazy comments to the United Nations about the environment:
“This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean, yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you?”
“You have stolen my dreams, my childhood, with your empty words and yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you?
“For more than thirty years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you’re doing enough when the politics and solutions needed are are still nowhere in sight.”
“You say you hear us and understand the urgency. No matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that, because if you really understood the situation, and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil and that I refuse to believe.”
“Change needs to happen now if we are to avoid the worst consequences. The climate crisis is not just the weather. It means also, lack of food and lack of water, places that are unlivable and refugees because of it. It is scary,”
‘How dare you’ she says. To which Nikitas3.com responds: How dare you, Greta Thunberg, think that you know so much. You know nothing at all. You are 16 years old. Everything you say has been spoon-fed to you by your handlers, many of whom are America-hating European communists.
Friends, there is no ‘climate’ crisis. There is no ‘global warming’. This stuff all has been debunked. The climate has been changing naturally for thousands of years. The climate also has been much hotter than today for 1,500 years out of the last 3,500 years in three separate periods. This happened long before the burning of coal, oil and natural gas which the ‘greenies’ blame for ‘warming’.
Do you know how the ‘greenies’ claim that the planet is burning up?
They take millions of temperature readings of the earth’s surface from satellites and feed them into computer models. These models then say that the planet is burning up. But who says the satellite readings are accurate? Who says these computer models are correct? Meanwhile any computer model can be altered significantly with the click of a mouse.
In the famous “Climate-gate” scandals of 2009 and 2011 hacked emails between top ‘warming’ alarmists revealed that the “scientists” were concerned that their apocalyptic numbers were not adding up. But you will never see this scandal exposed in the media.
And Greta Thunberg knows nothing about this fraud, and dozens of others relating to the climate.
No, the real goal of the ‘green’ movement is not even about the environment. It is to undermine the economies of Europe and the US and to allow communist China to continue to pollute its way to world domination. These militants like Thunberg are offering no criticism whatsoever about China when it is by far the biggest polluter of all.
How dare you ignore China, Greta Thunberg!
Meanwhile Thunberg has known mental problems like most people in the ‘green’ movement. For instance environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s wife committed suicide in 2012 and one of the founders of ‘earth day’ named Ira Einhorn is in prison for murdering his girlfriend.
Thunberg herself said that she fell into a depression and became ill when she was eleven years old. “I stopped talking. I stopped eating. In two months, I lost about ten kilos of weight. Later on I was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, OCD, and selective mutism—that basically means I only speak when I think it’s necessary.”
And this girl is telling the rest of us what to think and do? This is obscene. She should straighten out her own problems before telling the rest of us how to act.
Have you noticed how many news stories these days include the word “climate”? Or are focused on environmental issues?
Even in casually perusing the news you see references to “climate change” and “global warming” over and over. Even if a story is not directly concerned with these issues they will be suggested like this hypothetical example, “the state needs to fix 3,827 bridges that have been worn out as a result of ‘climate change’.” The words “climate change” are randomly and sneakily inserted into the story and we are not supposed to notice.
Or an article will hypothetically call for higher municipal taxes since “air conditioning costs at City Hall have risen as a result of ‘global warming’”.
They will never tell the truth that energy costs are rising as a direct result of inefficient windmills and solar panels. Or that bridges rot out from the frigid and snowy winters requiring heavy salt on the roads, not from ‘climate change’ or “warming”.
The left-wing Economist magazine has devoted many cover stories to ‘climate change’. Now The Gateway Pundit reports:
The Economist magazine has devoted an entire weekly issue to the “climate crisis,” calling for “all-encompassing” measures to curb global warming.
Because “the processes that force climate change are built into the foundations of the world economy and of geopolitics,” the UK-based journal insists, “measures to check climate change have to be similarly wide-ranging and all-encompassing.”
“To decarbonise an economy is not a simple subtraction; it requires a near-complete overhaul,” declares Zanny Minton Beddoes, the Economist’s editor-in-chief.
To justify an entire issue dedicated to climate, Minton Beddoes states that the topic of climate now touches on every aspect of the news.
Just look at that last sentence, that ‘climate change’ affects “every aspect of the news”.
So there you go – just like Nikitas3.com said. And notice that they are looking for “all-encompassing” measures to curb global warming.
That means that the radicals who run the ‘green’ movement want to take total control of the global economy to fit their worldview, like putting windmills on every mountaintop and black solar panels in every rural meadow.
This destroys nature worse than anything else!
And who gets wealth and power from windmills and solar panels?
Environmentalists and their rich investor friends do, that’s who.
And who gets stuck with the higher power bills from wind and solar? The rest of us do.
Meanwhile The Daily Caller reported this gem about a feminist author:
Margaret Atwood claimed Friday that her main concern with regard to climate was the warming oceans which she connected to an increase in traffic accidents.
Atwood, who appeared on ABC’s “The View” … explained that warming oceans would decrease the available oxygen in the atmosphere and insufficient oxygen to the brain would then cause more traffic accidents.
Joy Behar posed the question, noting that she herself was “obsessed with climate change” and that Atwood had spoken out about the topic in the past. “Really fast, tell me what bothers you the most,” she said.
“Okay. The thing to keep your eye on is the warmth of the ocean,” Atwood explained. “Because if the ocean warms too much, the marine algae that makes 60% to 80% of the oxygen we breathe will die and we’ll choke to death… We’ll have a lot of traffic accidents first because our brains will be oxygen-starved…”
See how it works? Traffic accidents = global warming. This is insanity. We can expect these ‘greenies’ to blame all of the world’s problems this way, i.e., my girlfriend broke up with me because of ‘climate change’, I couldn’t come to work today because I was so upset about ‘global warming’… And on and on.
Meanwhile Breitbart News recently reported about the extremist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders:
During an MSNBC climate change forum on Thursday, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) stated that he believes he “would be positively disposed to” expanding asylum categories to include people who are pushed out of their homes due to climate change.
Moderator Chris Hayes asked, “Would you favor expanding the asylum categories, which are enumerated, right, to include a category for people that are specifically climate — pushed out by climate?”
Sanders responded, “I think that is absolutely something that we have to look at, and I think I would be positively disposed to that. But it has to exist all over the world. … I mean, it’s not just people in Latin America who would gravitate to the United States. It is people all over the world. And it means that we have to deal with the crises in these countries right now so that people can possibly stay there, and we have to welcome people all over the world.”
Thus now even open-borders immigration policies are being bolstered by ‘climate change’ hysteria. See how the game works? Climate, climate everywhere… It never stops and never will. This is the Fake News media’s permanent new cause celebre.
Why This Police Officer Wouldn’t Become an Officer Again
Here is a commentary about why he would never become a police officer today by Philip Holloway, who began his career in law enforcement when he became a police officer in 1989.
He worked as a criminal law attorney began in 1996 after he graduated summa cum laude from South Texas College of Law. From college, he went on to serve as an officer and Judge Advocate in the United States Navy. He is the founder of the Holloway Law Group in Marietta, Georgia.
I graduated from a Georgia police academy in 1989 at the age of 19. I wasn’t even old enough to legally buy the gun I could lawfully carry as a newly-minted peace officer.
I was proud of this achievement and thoroughly enjoyed the esprit de corps with my classmates and new colleagues.
We didn’t have body cameras or many of the special tools officers have today but, for the most part, we had what we felt at the time we needed. Particularly we had overwhelming public support – or at least we felt that way.
Today, for a variety of reasons, police don’t feel they have that public support any longer. And they are right. And that’s why I wouldn’t do it again. At least not under today’s circumstances.
When I went to the police academy in 1989, I remember being taught in no uncertain terms that deadly force was authorized to stop a fleeing felon. In other words, we were told we could shoot someone who was a felon if they were running away from us. Fortunately, I was never in a position to test that training.
Police training in all subjects is now light years ahead of where it was then.
Training in the area of use of force is even further ahead in my view. Yet it is the polarizing issue of use of force that seems to most affect public perception of police officers today.
Today everyone has a high definition video camera at the ready and available to instantly live stream any police activity to a worldwide audience.
People nowadays are able to see — collectively for the first time — what law officers have always known: there is simply no “nice” way to arrest someone who is potentially dangerous and combative.
Police work can be, by its very nature, quite ugly and violent. It’s never like it is on TV or in the movies. But it is real life and involves real people.
We demand that our police swear to support and defend the Constitution and laws so we must, in turn, judge them — and their actions — according to the Constitution and laws as interpreted by the courts.
Unlike the court of public opinion or social media, real courts and investigators don’t have the luxury of picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution to apply. In fact, the law prohibits judging police actions through the 20/20 lens of hindsight – yet, via cell phone videos, that’s what happens in the court of public opinion.
In what now seems like a prophetic warning about the yet-to-be-invented cell phone video, in 1989 the Supreme Court decided that landmark case of Graham v Connor.
Graham provides that any use of force incident — deadly or otherwise — must be “objectively reasonable” under the totality of the circumstances and that “[t]he “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.
Unfortunately, this lack of public support has a way of spilling over to police management. Many officers feel their careers might be sacrificed at the altar of public opinion anytime they have to use force.
In my own legal practice, I’ve seen careers and reputations ruined by defamatory “knee-jerk” press releases issued prior to any meaningful investigation into the “totality of the circumstances” surrounding a use of force incident.
Rarely, if ever, are knee jerk decisions helpful – particularly if based on a single video or social media post.
If you consider most any cell phone video of police use of force against the backdrop of a pop culture that includes rap music with titles like “F**k The Police” and lyrics such as: “We need to … kill cops. Plus stupid, ya stupid, I hope you rot in hell”
It isn’t hard to see why many officers (and potential recruits) might be inclined to steer away from a career in law enforcement.
Law enforcement is a public service performed by men and women willing to put the best interests of the public ahead of their own. They may be able to live with the low pay, missing holidays with family, or working long inconvenient hours. But in my experience, many just can’t see their way clear to doing the job without public support and nobody wants to work a job where they are not appreciated.
I know I don’t. And that’s why I wouldn’t do it again.
This is a sad commentary and a sign that the anti-cop leftists are having an effect on our ability to control crime. If nobody wants to become a police officer, then who will protect us?