Category: Daren M. Williams

Master of the Twitter Universe


What do a retweet of a billion-dollar presidential golf swing hitting a hole-in-one into the back of a former presidential Democrat candidate, the new name poetically given to a crazed lunatic who has a fetish for shooting off misguided rockets, and a March 4th claim of “wiretapping” in Trump Tower that took seven months to be proven true, all have in common? President Donald J. Trump‘s magnificent way of communicating to the American people and the world instantaneously — tweeting.

What Twitter is for President Trump in 2017, Facebook was for former President Obama in 2008.

There has been much said about President Trump’s Twitter activity and the content thereof, and the discussions have centered on whether tweeting is fittingly “presidential”. As to that, I ask “may I see the Presidential Behavior Manual?” Should he hire someone to tweet for him? Or do we suggest the extreme of taking away the President’s First Amendment constitutional right to freedom of speech, i.e., banning him from Twitter altogether? Even as you read this, the media, particularly the Left, is having panel discussions and town hall meetings about the President telling the American people the truth about events in his own characteristic form of expression — blunt, direct, and to the point — yet all of his tweets will be revealed as truth when the smoke clears.

Folks, it’s a brave new world and there are some who just don’t want to embrace it.

But let’s do some compare and contrast, shall we?

Back in 2008, a skinny no-name dude came out of nowhere and captured the attention of the American people. That skinny dude was Barack Hussein Obama. And how did he captivate the country, particularly millennials? Through social media — specifically Facebook.

The Republicans and their candidate, John McCain, were completely caught off guard and could not match Obama’s pace on social media. By the time they realized what hit them, Obama had already won the election and Republicans were fuming, thinking that he and the Democrats had played dirty tricks when in reality their failure to reach the American people was due to their own lack of innovation, among other things. In realizing the success and power of social media and how great it was as a propaganda tool, Obama completely prostituted Mark Zuckerberg’s creation.

Literally spreading lies and propaganda through social media, Obama was able to mesmerize and confuse millennials and others who believed that he was hip and in tune with the American people and leading them to greener pastures. From ObamaCare, to the Iran deal, to trivial things like what he was feeding his dog, social media became a huge part of Barack Obama’s newspeak to America and the world. Think back to when the Supreme Court ruled on gay marriages – the White House Facebook page had an avatar photo of the White House in the rainbow gay colors… how’s that for a Newspeak?! Yet nobody questioned or challenged his access or content.

Now fast forward to 2016. When the presidential election was heating up, Donald J. Trump used Twitter as his bullhorn. Free access, free rein, and rapid-fire comments that shocked the world and the Democrat party as well as some Republicans. Just as Obama was ahead of McCain in 2008 with Facebook, Trump outpaced Obama and Hillary when it came to Twitter. Twitter was the one social media network that Obama had never used. And when Obama tried to catch up with Twitter, he ended up making himself look like a fool. Does anyone remember when he was on the “Jimmy Kimmel Live” late-night show and he was answering a tweet from then candidate Donald Trump? Trump tweeted that “President Obama will go down as perhaps the worst President in American history”. And Obama replied unwittingly and arrogantly with “at least I will go down as a president”. Little did he know Trump would soon succeed him. Karma is (t)weet!

But the platform for communication aside, what of the content of the communiqués? Simply put, while 9 times out of 10 the propaganda that Obama posted on social media was complete and utter lies, thus far 100% of the information that President Trump has placed on Twitter has been truthful and accurate.

And therein lies the problem.

It’s not a problem for the media and the Democrats that President Donald Trump is using Twitter. The problem is that he’s using Twitter without going through the media. The media has always been the newspeak propaganda machine for the Democrats, and the media has always been at the forefront of disseminating that information. Yet now America has a President who doesn’t need the media nor cares for the media, so he uses a brilliant medium to speak directly to each and every individual connected to the internet across America and the world. President Donald Trump is a 71-year-old businessman whose personality is solidified, so the way he communicates on social media is going to reflect that personality — blunt, sharp, to the point — and you’re not going to change that in a 71-year-old man. The best thing to do for those in America and around the world who don’t like it is to just accept it for the next 7+ years. Because believe you me, he’s going to win reelection — and he’ll tweet about that too!

#enoughsaid

What do a retweet of a billion-dollar presidential golf swing hitting a hole-in-one into the back of a former presidential Democrat candidate, the new name poetically given to a crazed lunatic who has a fetish for shooting off misguided rockets, and a March 4th claim of “wiretapping” in Trump Tower that took seven months to be proven true, all have in common? President Donald J. Trump‘s magnificent way of communicating to the American people and the world instantaneously — tweeting.

What Twitter is for President Trump in 2017, Facebook was for former President Obama in 2008.

There has been much said about President Trump’s Twitter activity and the content thereof, and the discussions have centered on whether tweeting is fittingly “presidential”. As to that, I ask “may I see the Presidential Behavior Manual?” Should he hire someone to tweet for him? Or do we suggest the extreme of taking away the President’s First Amendment constitutional right to freedom of speech, i.e., banning him from Twitter altogether? Even as you read this, the media, particularly the Left, is having panel discussions and town hall meetings about the President telling the American people the truth about events in his own characteristic form of expression — blunt, direct, and to the point — yet all of his tweets will be revealed as truth when the smoke clears.

Folks, it’s a brave new world and there are some who just don’t want to embrace it.

But let’s do some compare and contrast, shall we?

Back in 2008, a skinny no-name dude came out of nowhere and captured the attention of the American people. That skinny dude was Barack Hussein Obama. And how did he captivate the country, particularly millennials? Through social media — specifically Facebook.

The Republicans and their candidate, John McCain, were completely caught off guard and could not match Obama’s pace on social media. By the time they realized what hit them, Obama had already won the election and Republicans were fuming, thinking that he and the Democrats had played dirty tricks when in reality their failure to reach the American people was due to their own lack of innovation, among other things. In realizing the success and power of social media and how great it was as a propaganda tool, Obama completely prostituted Mark Zuckerberg’s creation.

Literally spreading lies and propaganda through social media, Obama was able to mesmerize and confuse millennials and others who believed that he was hip and in tune with the American people and leading them to greener pastures. From ObamaCare, to the Iran deal, to trivial things like what he was feeding his dog, social media became a huge part of Barack Obama’s newspeak to America and the world. Think back to when the Supreme Court ruled on gay marriages – the White House Facebook page had an avatar photo of the White House in the rainbow gay colors… how’s that for a Newspeak?! Yet nobody questioned or challenged his access or content.

Now fast forward to 2016. When the presidential election was heating up, Donald J. Trump used Twitter as his bullhorn. Free access, free rein, and rapid-fire comments that shocked the world and the Democrat party as well as some Republicans. Just as Obama was ahead of McCain in 2008 with Facebook, Trump outpaced Obama and Hillary when it came to Twitter. Twitter was the one social media network that Obama had never used. And when Obama tried to catch up with Twitter, he ended up making himself look like a fool. Does anyone remember when he was on the “Jimmy Kimmel Live” late-night show and he was answering a tweet from then candidate Donald Trump? Trump tweeted that “President Obama will go down as perhaps the worst President in American history”. And Obama replied unwittingly and arrogantly with “at least I will go down as a president”. Little did he know Trump would soon succeed him. Karma is (t)weet!

But the platform for communication aside, what of the content of the communiqués? Simply put, while 9 times out of 10 the propaganda that Obama posted on social media was complete and utter lies, thus far 100% of the information that President Trump has placed on Twitter has been truthful and accurate.

And therein lies the problem.

It’s not a problem for the media and the Democrats that President Donald Trump is using Twitter. The problem is that he’s using Twitter without going through the media. The media has always been the newspeak propaganda machine for the Democrats, and the media has always been at the forefront of disseminating that information. Yet now America has a President who doesn’t need the media nor cares for the media, so he uses a brilliant medium to speak directly to each and every individual connected to the internet across America and the world. President Donald Trump is a 71-year-old businessman whose personality is solidified, so the way he communicates on social media is going to reflect that personality — blunt, sharp, to the point — and you’re not going to change that in a 71-year-old man. The best thing to do for those in America and around the world who don’t like it is to just accept it for the next 7+ years. Because believe you me, he’s going to win reelection — and he’ll tweet about that too!

#enoughsaid



Source link

What Are Little Girls Now Being Made Of?


What are little boys made of?

What are little boys made of?

  Snips and snails

  And puppy-dogs’ tails

That’s what little boys are made of

 

What are little girls made of?

What are little girls made of?

  Sugar and spice

  And everything nice 

That’s what little girls are made of

“What Are Little Boys Made Of?” is a popular nursery rhyme dating from the early 19th century. And up until recently almost every child, boy and girl, learned and happily recited that nursery rhyme. Why did they happily recite that nursery rhyme? Because it was true. Yet now that nursery rhyme is seldom taught to or even heard by young children. And the reason for that is because it is no longer true. Through the unilateral efforts of radical feminists straining to be completely equal to men, American women have traded sugar and spice and everything nice for snips and snails and puppy-dog’s tails… that’s now what little girls are made of. Or what feminists want girls to be made of.

In 1989, the year before they published their book, The Day America Told the Truth, James Patterson and Peter Kim conducted a national survey of more than 2,000 Americans, each of whom was given over 1,800 questions to answer. It was conducted simultaneously all across America at locations where the privacy and anonymity of the respondents could be guaranteed. The results revealed a number of interesting things about America’s views on a variety of issues, but I will focus on just one which is revealing itself to be something much different in the 21st-century. 

During the early and mid-20th century it was a proven fact that women in America were morally superior to American men. Women were less likely to cheat on their spouses or lovers and less likely to steal from others, whether the thievery be of time or money or just one’s self-respect. Women were more likely to obey the laws of the land and show remorse if they broke them. Women were more likely to come to work on time, stay longer and be more productive than men. They were less likely to lie or cheat on their taxes. Women were more trustworthy with children than men and children were more likely to gravitate to a woman for guidance. Women were less likely to use drugs, drink alcohol, endanger their lover with sexually-transmitted diseases or squander their money. And finally, women were more likely than men to be religiously-minded and attend church on a regular basis. So yes, women, up until recently, were morally superior to men in America.

But before women start to toot their own horn about a superior characteristic that they have long since lost, let me explain the underlying cause that resulted in this once-held advantage. 

Women were not morally superior because of some conscious effort or desire to make them that way. It was not preplanned in the minds of men or women to single out the female and deem her to be of a higher moral fiber. And by no means did God call from heaven the idea that women should be morally superior to men. In actuality, God created man first and made him the head of the household, intending for him to be the stronger, more superior sex; and it is this origin of subordinance that unconsciously shapes her morally superiority

In the American culture, boys and girls born into the same family were treated entirely differently. The unintentional result was that the girl was raised to be morally superior to the boy. When we raised a girl, we taught her how to be polite, considerate unto others, and to be more seen than heard. We taught her how to dress modestly and appropriately, how to temper her voice and emotions when in public and in one-on-one communications. We taught the girls how to consider other people’s feelings, and how never to ridicule, make fun, or impugn others for their beliefs, understandings, or inadequacies. Even the smallest, seemingly most basic mundane things we taught them were also forms of moral superiority — when girls sat down they should always cross their legs and when they stood up they should always have good posture and be graceful when they walked. We taught girls how to cook, clean, and care for the young and the elderly much more so than we taught men. While not the case for all women of course, in general women were unintentionally taught moral superiority over men. 

Yet during the close of the 20th century, the mantle of moral superiority that women once held has all but slipped away. Those qualities mentioned above a large percentage of women do not now possess. And the reason for this is that women have traded their moral superiority for absolute equality with men. 

The radical leftist feminist movement and its abrasive, unrelenting, and divested methods has claimed to uplift women in their roles in society and make them equal with men, yet what radical feminism has actually done is completely remove the woman from her seat of Grace. Many women in America are no longer seen as the morally superior sex. They are seen, at their own insistence, as the worst of the male stereotype — cutthroat, abrasive, callous, cold, hardcore, and without remorse, as well as overly demanding, quick to deceive and manipulate, and willing to impugn any and every one that does not agree or go along with their feminist agenda. Even in the marketplace, the same type of attitude is now more prevalent among women. Desiring to get to the top as quickly as possible and to compete one-on-one with men, many women have pledged allegiance to stop at nothing in order to gain a seat of power and this so-called equality between the sexes. 

The insanity of all of this is that women, try as they might, are not men and never will be. And living in this great republic that is America in the 20th/21st century, they not only have absolute judicial and legislative equality, but thanks to their extreme social and political agendas, they actually have an advantage over men — the best of both the old and new worlds. They have the freedom to choose a hardline career or stay-at-home motherhood, to demand gentlemanly behavior or turn up their noses at it, to cry rape at the final moment after a night of debauchery, and on and on. And most of all, they have conditioned the once magnetic and compelling and thus uberattractive Marlboro man into the submissiveness they so despised in their own gender not so long ago.

Feminism has no place in America any longer. One only has to read the feminist recital of author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie from Nigeria to understand why.  In her book, Dear Ijeawele, Or a Feminist Manifesto in Fifteen Suggestions, she describes how women in the Nigerian culture are blatantly discriminated against and subjugated.  Women are considered to be literally under the absolute control of first their fathers and then their husbands. So, the feminist movement there makes sense — they are trying to elevate themselves to the position of equality as human beings in a civilized society. American women already have this status and so their radical abhorrence of their own femininity only serves to prove an underlying sense of insecurity with their own identity and foster long-term discontent. 

And as if self-conversion was not enough for these women in America, now they have turned their perverted ideology towards the recruitment of precious little girls into their religious feminist cult.

What are little boys made of?

What are little boys made of?

  Snips and snails

  And puppy-dogs’ tails

That’s what little boys are made of

 

What are little girls made of?

What are little girls made of?

  Sugar and spice

  And everything nice 

That’s what little girls are made of

“What Are Little Boys Made Of?” is a popular nursery rhyme dating from the early 19th century. And up until recently almost every child, boy and girl, learned and happily recited that nursery rhyme. Why did they happily recite that nursery rhyme? Because it was true. Yet now that nursery rhyme is seldom taught to or even heard by young children. And the reason for that is because it is no longer true. Through the unilateral efforts of radical feminists straining to be completely equal to men, American women have traded sugar and spice and everything nice for snips and snails and puppy-dog’s tails… that’s now what little girls are made of. Or what feminists want girls to be made of.

In 1989, the year before they published their book, The Day America Told the Truth, James Patterson and Peter Kim conducted a national survey of more than 2,000 Americans, each of whom was given over 1,800 questions to answer. It was conducted simultaneously all across America at locations where the privacy and anonymity of the respondents could be guaranteed. The results revealed a number of interesting things about America’s views on a variety of issues, but I will focus on just one which is revealing itself to be something much different in the 21st-century. 

During the early and mid-20th century it was a proven fact that women in America were morally superior to American men. Women were less likely to cheat on their spouses or lovers and less likely to steal from others, whether the thievery be of time or money or just one’s self-respect. Women were more likely to obey the laws of the land and show remorse if they broke them. Women were more likely to come to work on time, stay longer and be more productive than men. They were less likely to lie or cheat on their taxes. Women were more trustworthy with children than men and children were more likely to gravitate to a woman for guidance. Women were less likely to use drugs, drink alcohol, endanger their lover with sexually-transmitted diseases or squander their money. And finally, women were more likely than men to be religiously-minded and attend church on a regular basis. So yes, women, up until recently, were morally superior to men in America.

But before women start to toot their own horn about a superior characteristic that they have long since lost, let me explain the underlying cause that resulted in this once-held advantage. 

Women were not morally superior because of some conscious effort or desire to make them that way. It was not preplanned in the minds of men or women to single out the female and deem her to be of a higher moral fiber. And by no means did God call from heaven the idea that women should be morally superior to men. In actuality, God created man first and made him the head of the household, intending for him to be the stronger, more superior sex; and it is this origin of subordinance that unconsciously shapes her morally superiority

In the American culture, boys and girls born into the same family were treated entirely differently. The unintentional result was that the girl was raised to be morally superior to the boy. When we raised a girl, we taught her how to be polite, considerate unto others, and to be more seen than heard. We taught her how to dress modestly and appropriately, how to temper her voice and emotions when in public and in one-on-one communications. We taught the girls how to consider other people’s feelings, and how never to ridicule, make fun, or impugn others for their beliefs, understandings, or inadequacies. Even the smallest, seemingly most basic mundane things we taught them were also forms of moral superiority — when girls sat down they should always cross their legs and when they stood up they should always have good posture and be graceful when they walked. We taught girls how to cook, clean, and care for the young and the elderly much more so than we taught men. While not the case for all women of course, in general women were unintentionally taught moral superiority over men. 

Yet during the close of the 20th century, the mantle of moral superiority that women once held has all but slipped away. Those qualities mentioned above a large percentage of women do not now possess. And the reason for this is that women have traded their moral superiority for absolute equality with men. 

The radical leftist feminist movement and its abrasive, unrelenting, and divested methods has claimed to uplift women in their roles in society and make them equal with men, yet what radical feminism has actually done is completely remove the woman from her seat of Grace. Many women in America are no longer seen as the morally superior sex. They are seen, at their own insistence, as the worst of the male stereotype — cutthroat, abrasive, callous, cold, hardcore, and without remorse, as well as overly demanding, quick to deceive and manipulate, and willing to impugn any and every one that does not agree or go along with their feminist agenda. Even in the marketplace, the same type of attitude is now more prevalent among women. Desiring to get to the top as quickly as possible and to compete one-on-one with men, many women have pledged allegiance to stop at nothing in order to gain a seat of power and this so-called equality between the sexes. 

The insanity of all of this is that women, try as they might, are not men and never will be. And living in this great republic that is America in the 20th/21st century, they not only have absolute judicial and legislative equality, but thanks to their extreme social and political agendas, they actually have an advantage over men — the best of both the old and new worlds. They have the freedom to choose a hardline career or stay-at-home motherhood, to demand gentlemanly behavior or turn up their noses at it, to cry rape at the final moment after a night of debauchery, and on and on. And most of all, they have conditioned the once magnetic and compelling and thus uberattractive Marlboro man into the submissiveness they so despised in their own gender not so long ago.

Feminism has no place in America any longer. One only has to read the feminist recital of author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie from Nigeria to understand why.  In her book, Dear Ijeawele, Or a Feminist Manifesto in Fifteen Suggestions, she describes how women in the Nigerian culture are blatantly discriminated against and subjugated.  Women are considered to be literally under the absolute control of first their fathers and then their husbands. So, the feminist movement there makes sense — they are trying to elevate themselves to the position of equality as human beings in a civilized society. American women already have this status and so their radical abhorrence of their own femininity only serves to prove an underlying sense of insecurity with their own identity and foster long-term discontent. 

And as if self-conversion was not enough for these women in America, now they have turned their perverted ideology towards the recruitment of precious little girls into their religious feminist cult.



Source link