PLEASE REMEMBER TO SHARE & SUBSCRIBE!

CHECK OUT THE LATEST EPISODE OF LIVE WITH CHRIS’WORLD!

WE FILTER NEWS SO YOU DON’T HAVE TO BECAUSE FACTS AND TRUTH MATTER!

The recent horrific incident in New York City, where a Guatemalan migrant was arrested for the savage act of setting a sleeping woman on fire on an F train in Coney Island, underscores several critical issues:

• Public Safety: This brutal crime highlights the dire need for stronger immigration policies to protect American citizens. The suspect, who had entered the country, should have been a clear example of why stringent border controls and deportation of illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds are necessary.

• Law Enforcement Efficiency: The initial oversight by law enforcement in not immediately apprehending the suspect after the attack illustrates the need for better training and possibly more resources for our police forces. Immediate action could have prevented further tragedy or harm.

• Victim's Tragic Fate: The gruesome end to the victim's life, with her clothes burned off, is a stark reminder of the real human cost of what conservatives argue is lax immigration policy. This incident is not just a statistic but a tragic loss of life that could have been prevented with stricter immigration controls.

• Community Vigilance: Thankfully, a vigilant public played a pivotal role in identifying and leading to the arrest of the suspect. This event showcases the importance of community involvement and the effectiveness of citizens in aiding law enforcement.

This heart-wrenching case is a poignant argument for Donald Trump's advocated policies on immigration and law enforcement. It showcases the need for an "America First" approach to public safety, where protecting citizens from potential threats from within our borders is paramount. It's a call to action for more rigorous border security, effective law enforcement, and the prioritization of American lives and safety over open-border policies that conservatives argue have led to such preventable tragedies.

The case of Congresswoman Kay Granger (R-TX) serves as a stark illustration of why term limits are essential for maintaining the integrity and functionality of our government.

• Longevity in Office: Granger, having been in office since 1997, represents the issue of politicians holding onto power for too long, potentially beyond their capability to serve effectively. This situation raises serious questions about the quality of representation and decision-making in Congress.

• Health and Capability: Her absence from her congressional duties for six months, only to be discovered in a dementia care facility at 81 years old, underscores the need for mechanisms like term limits to ensure leaders remain capable of performing their duties. It's about ensuring that Congress is run by those who can actively engage in the legislative process.

• Voter Disenfranchisement: With Granger unable to represent her district due to her health, her constituents have been left without a voice or representation in critical legislative matters, highlighting a failure of the current system to protect voter interests.

• Systemic Issues: This incident is not isolated but part of a broader pattern where long-term incumbency can lead to a lack of accountability, transparency, and fresh ideas. It's a reminder of the need for systemic changes, like term limits, to prevent such situations.

Donald Trump's advocacy for term limits was precisely to avoid scenarios like this where politicians remain in office long past their effective service, potentially neglecting their duties or being unable to fulfill them. This case with Granger is a clear signal that America needs term limits to bring in new blood, ensure active representation, and maintain a dynamic and responsive legislative body. It's time for Congress to reflect the principles of renewal and accountability that Trump and conservative voters champion.

The recent exchange between Panama and President Donald Trump over the Panama Canal is a testament to Trump's unwavering resolve in defending American interests, showcasing an America First perspective.

• Asserting Dominance: Trump's response to Panama's clap back by renaming the canal to "United States Canal" is a bold move, demonstrating his commitment to not backing down from international challenges. It reflects the "America First" policy where U.S. interests are paramount.

• Historical Precedence: The Panama Canal was built by the United States, and Trump's actions echo the sentiment that the U.S. should not be taken for granted or disrespected by nations benefiting from American infrastructure and generosity.

• Strategic Importance: The canal is crucial for global trade, especially for U.S. commerce and naval operations. Trump's stance is seen as a reminder of the U.S.'s strategic importance in international waters and a signal that the country will not tolerate being "ripped off" by any nation.

• National Pride: By directly confronting Panama's response, Trump reaffirms national pride and the idea that America won't be pushed around, especially when it comes to assets that have historical American significance and current strategic value.

This episode with Panama confirms that under Trump's leadership, the U.S. will assert its dominance where it sees fit, especially regarding infrastructure like the Panama Canal. His decisive action in renaming the canal sends a clear message: if Donald Trump wants something for America, he will find a way to get it, reflecting his strong, no-nonsense approach to foreign policy admired by many conservatives. Panama's attempted clap back is seen as futile in the face of Trump's determination to protect and advance American interests.

The stark contrast in billionaire support between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump before the election illuminates significant points:

• Elite vs. The People: Kamala Harris being backed by 83 billionaires, compared to Trump's 52, suggests a disconnect between the Democratic candidate and the average American. It portrays the Democratic Party as the choice of the elite, while Trump's support, though still from the wealthy, was significantly less, hinting at a broader base among the working and middle class.

• Policy Implications: The support from tech moguls like Reid Hoffman, Michael Bloomberg, and Steve Ballmer for Harris indicates her alignment with policies that favor big tech, potentially at the expense of smaller businesses and individual privacy. Trump's policies, focusing on deregulation, tax cuts, and American business interests, resonate more with the entrepreneurial spirit and economic nationalism favored by conservatives.

• Populist Appeal: Trump's campaign was built on an "America First" narrative, appealing directly to the disenfranchised, those feeling left behind by globalization, and those skeptical of the influence of big money in politics. This disparity in billionaire endorsements underscores the narrative that the Republican Party under Trump was the true party of the people, not beholden to the ultra-rich.

• Political Transparency: The revelation of such endorsements also raises questions about influence and policy direction. Trump's fewer billionaire backers can be spun as a sign of less corporate influence, promoting the idea of a more transparent and populist administration.

This imbalance in billionaire support between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump highlights a fundamental difference in political alignment. It reaffirms Trump's image as the outsider fighting against the establishment and big money, positioning the Republican Party, particularly under Trump's leadership, as the real party of the people. This scenario supports the conservative argument that the Democrats are more in line with the interests of the global elite rather than the American populace.

The recent spyware alert from Apple, warning iPhone users of targeted attacks, underscores the necessity for vigilance and the reinforcement of conservative values like privacy and security:

• Security and Privacy: The acknowledgment by Apple of sophisticated attacks using tools like Pegasus highlights the ongoing threats to personal privacy, a cornerstone of conservative ideologies. Trump's administration was known for its focus on cybersecurity, emphasizing the protection of American data and communications from foreign entities.

• Targeting High-Profile Individuals: The fact that these attacks aim at high-profile individuals, potentially including political figures, journalists, and activists, aligns with Trump's narrative of being under constant attack from various fronts. This situation calls for robust defenses against such intrusions, advocating for stronger national cybersecurity policies.

• Technological Solutions: The recommendation of apps like 'Am I Secure?' for detecting spyware resonates with conservative calls for self-reliance and individual responsibility in protecting one's digital life. It's a practical approach to national security that starts at the individual level, reflecting the conservative value of personal accountability.

• Trust in American Companies: While Apple, a tech giant, warns about these threats, there's a broader conservative critique of big tech companies for potentially colluding with foreign entities or for not doing enough to protect American users. This incident could serve as a reminder of the need for American tech firms to be more accountable and transparent.

Apple's stark warning about mercenary spyware attacks is a clear signal to take cybersecurity seriously. This situation not only validates concerns about digital security but also highlights the need for policies that protect American privacy and sovereignty in the digital age. It's a reminder that while technology advances, so do the threats, necessitating a strong, proactive stance in cybersecurity, much like the policies advocated during Trump's presidency.