Connect with us

International

Trump victory speech: ‘Many people have told me that God spared my life for a reason’

Published

2 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

Donald Trump has said that “many people have told me that God spared my life for a reason” during his victory speech after the 2024 presidential election.

In the early hours of November 6, Trump gave his victory speech at West Palm Beach in Florida, calling his campaign “the greatest political movement of all time.” He said the country saw a “historic realignment, uniting citizens of all backgrounds behind a common core of common sense.” His election will lead to a “Golden Age of America,” Trump stated.

“Many people have told me that God spared my life for a reason, and that reason was to save our country and restore America to greatness,” Trump proclaimed, referencing the failed assassination attempt on July 13 during a rally in Pennsylvania.

 

“I will govern by a simple motto: ‘Promises made, promises kept’,” Trump declared during his speech.

One of these promises was ending the war in Ukraine and in the Middle East, which Trump referenced during his address.

Citing his previous term as President of the United States, he said: “We had no wars, except we defeated ISIS in record time.”

“They said, ‘He will start a war!’ I’m not going to start a war; I’m going to stop wars!” Trump stated, likely alluding to his promises to broker peace deals in Ukraine and the Middle East.

While Trump has not been officially declared the winner of the 2024 presidential election, he is projected to win the Electoral College to become the 47th president of the United States, defeating Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Energy

Energy Effect: Trump’s big win fuels talk of policy actions

Published on

From The Center Square

By

“Our long national nightmare with the Green New Deal is finally over because energy was on the ballot in 2024, and energy won”

Former President Donald Trump is on track to potentially receive 300 electoral votes or more. He won the national popular vote by about 5 million with votes still being counted. As a result, some analysts and Republicans say Trump and the GOP have a “mandate” to aggressively push forward with their agenda.

“America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate,” Trump said in his speech early Wednesday morning, creating a refrain echoed by his supporters.

As of midday Wednesday, Trump secured 292 electoral votes after Michigan and its 15 votes were called – 270 were needed to win the race. He also leads Vice President Kamala Harris in Alaska, Arizona and Nevada.

If Trump holds in those states, he will have 312 electoral votes, propelled in large part due to a level of support from Black voters and Hispanic voters unusual for a Republican.

“The American people have sent a clear message through President Trump’s resounding victory,” U.S. Sen. Thom Thillis, R-N.C., wrote on X. “The mandate is clear: fix the economy, secure the border, keep America safe, and confirm more judges who follow the Constitution.”

At the same time Wednesday, House Republicans had won 198 House racers and Democrats had won 177 with the rest uncalled; 218 are needed to win a majority. In the Senate, Republicans won 52 seats and Democrats won 42 with six still to be called, flipping the upper chamber to GOP control.

“This is a mandate,” Scott Jennings, an alum of the George W. Bush administration and CNN analyst said on the air as results came in early Wednesday morning.

“He won the national popular vote for the first time for a Republican since 2004,” Jennings said. “This is a big deal. This isn’t backing into the office. This is a mandate to do what you said you were going to do. Get the economy working again for regular, working class Americans. Fix immigration. Try to get crime under control. Try to reduce the chaos in the world. This is a mandate from the American people to do that.”

On economic policy, Trump is expected to double down on domestic oil drilling to increase revenue for the U.S. and lower energy costs for Americans. Trump made inflation a focus of his campaign, pledging to use domestic oil to get costs down for Americans and even pay off debt with the tax revenue.

“Our long national nightmare with the Green New Deal is finally over because energy was on the ballot in 2024, and energy won,” said Daniel Turner, founder and executive director of energy worker advocacy group Power The Future. “On day one, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris fired thousands of Keystone XL workers and thankfully starting in January it’s this administration that will be unemployed.”

Republicans have also vowed tax reform, something they prioritized after Trump came into office last time around. Experts said the market reacted favorably to Trump’s win.

“Trump’s election victory sparked a rally in the greenback last night as growth and inflation expectations rerated higher,” Adam Turnquist, chief technical strategist for LPL Financial in Charlotte, North Carolina, said in a statement. “Fed funds futures dialed back rate cut expectations from five to four 0.25% cuts by the end of next year. Yields surged higher, a move further exacerbated by deficit spending concerns, especially if Republicans secure the House.”

Trump also pledged to quickly negotiate an end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, something that earned him bipartisan support from many Americans, including Arab and Muslim Americans frustrated by the Biden-Harris handling of the Israel-Hamas war.

Pop culture figure and Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy told his 3.3 million followers the win was a “ringing endorsement of Republicans” and “an indictment against the Democrats,” using a familiar message analysts across platforms online and on television.

That perception will be key for Republicans who likely have two years to push through a legislative agenda as reports indicate they will have a majority in the Senate and possibly the House.

Polls showed only 28% of Americans felt the country was headed in the right direction, something incumbent Harris could not overcome.

“I wanted Trump to win, but more than that, I wanted a decisive victory,” Newsweek Opinion Editor Batya Ungar-Sargon wrote on X. “If it’s true he’s won the popular vote, that is a mandate to lead. Calling Trump Hitler is now proven to be what it always was: an unforgivable smear of the majority of Americans. It’s time to embrace unity.”

While Harris delayed in recognizing Trump as the winner, still not conceding as of early Wednesday afternoon, his other fiercest opponents, like former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney, recognized him on X but offered a warning.

“Our nation’s democratic system functioned last night and we have a new President-elect,” said Cheney, a Republican who campaigned with Democrat Harris on the trail. “All Americans are bound, whether we like the outcome or not, to accept the results of our elections. We now have a special responsibility, as citizens of the greatest nation on earth, to do everything we can to support and defend our Constitution, preserve the rule of law, and ensure that our institutions hold over these coming four years.”

Continue Reading

conflict

How the Biden-Harris admin pushed Russia into war with Ukraine

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Bob Marshall

I was … bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.… Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.

In September, Vice President Kamala Harris stated several points at the White House as to how she would handle the Ukraine-Russia war: “I will work to ensure Ukraine prevails in this war.… Putin started this war, and … Putin could set his sights on Poland, the Baltic states, and other NATO Allies.… [S]ome in my country … demand that Ukraine accept neutrality, and would require Ukraine to forego security relationships with other nations. These proposals are the same of those of Putin.”

But these are the same Biden-Harris tactics and policies that provoked war.

Harris blames Russian President Vladimir Putin for the war. But the proximate source of the Russia-Ukraine conflict goes back beyond Putin to the breakup of the Soviet Empire and even earlier.

End of the Cold War

In late October 1989, the famed Berlin Wall as a dividing line between Socialist German Democratic Republic (GDR) and West Germany, called a “wall of mistrust” by then former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, was crumbling.

Obviously, Gorbachev, with almost 400,000 troops in East Germany could have stopped the reunification. But Western officials gave Russian leaders assurances there was nothing to worry about. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker told Gorbachev that NATO expansion would proceed, “not one inch eastward.” The next day, West German chancellor Helmut Kohl assured Gorbachev, “NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.”

The Los Angeles Times noted, “Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.… NATO’S widening umbrella doesn’t justify Putin’s … incursions in Ukraine or Georgia. Still, the evidence suggests that Russia’s protests have merit and that U.S. policy has contributed to current tensions in Europe.”

Documents at George Washington University testify to agreements made between Western leaders and Russian officials at this time – that western nations would not expand NATO to the East.

Yeltsin said to Clinton, “I want to get a clear understanding of your idea of NATO expansion, because now I see nothing but humiliation for Russia if you proceed. How do you think it looks to us if one bloc continues to exist while the Warsaw Pact has been abolished? It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner, they ask. I ask it too. Why do you want to do this?”

When Clinton spoke to Yeltsin in 1995, there were 15 NATO member countries. When Clinton left office, there were 18.

Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion

In 2016, President Clinton’s former Defense Secretary Bill Perry said, “In the last few years, most of the blame can be pointed at the actions that Putin has taken. But in the early years … the United States deserves much of the blame.… Our first action … in a bad direction was when NATO started to expand, bringing in eastern European nations, some of them bordering Russia.”

Former CIA Director Robert Gates, who also served as Secretary of Defense for President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, opposed the policy of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”

In June 1997, 50 former senators, retired military officers, diplomats, and foreign policy academics wrote to President Clinton about the problems and ill consequences of NATO expansion:

[T]he current U.S. led effort to expand NATO … is a policy error of historic proportions.… NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability …

In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition … [and] bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement.

In 1998, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman asked George Kennan, who devised the successful “containment” policy to prevent the Soviet Union from achieving its goal of world domination through open warfare, what he thought of the U.S. Senate ratifying NATO expansion even up to Russia’s border. Kennan replied:

[I]t is the beginning of a new Cold War.… There was no reason for this.… No one was threatening anybody else.… We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so.

I was … bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.… Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.

In 2007, Putin noted, “NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders … and what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact … NATO General Secretary Mr. Woerner in Brussels on May 17, 1990 … said … ‘The fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.’ Where are these guarantees?”

Fiona Hill points to 2007 when Putin “put the world, and certainly Europe, on notice that Moscow would not accept the further expansion of NATO.… In 2008 NATO gave an open door to Georgia and Ukraine.… Four months after NATO’s Bucharest Summit, there was the [Russian] invasion of Georgia. There wasn’t an invasion of Ukraine then because the Ukrainian government pulled back from seeking NATO membership.”

William Burns, now President Biden’s Central Intelligence director and former U.S. ambassador to Russia, wrote to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2008:

Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players … I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

Putin told Burns in 2008: “No Russian leader could stand idly by in the face of steps toward NATO membership for Ukraine. That would be a hostile act toward Russia. We would do all in our power to prevent it.”

In 2015, the German Der Speigel magazine interviewed Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter, regarding the status of Ukraine in response to the abrupt change in the presidential leadership and Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Brzezinski suggested that “Ukraine should be free to choose its political identity.… But … Russia should be assured credibly that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO.”

More recently in 2022, the Wall Street Journal reported, “Pope Francis said that the ‘barking of NATO at the door of Russia’ might have led to the invasion of Ukraine.… The pope … deplored the brutality of the war.… Pope Francis … described Russia’s attitude to Ukraine as ‘an anger that I don’t know whether it was provoked but was perhaps facilitated’ by the presence in nearby countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.… ‘In Ukraine, it was other states that created the conflict.’”

The caution of these experienced statesmen and world leaders is lost on President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

This article is reprinted with permission from the Family Research Council, publishers of The Washington Stand at washingtonstand.com.

Continue Reading

Trending

X