BREAKING NEWS: Maddow is a Moron


BREAKING NEWS: Maddow is a Moron

By Spencer Harris and Rose Taylor

Well, that was underwhelming. After a massive build-up about President Trump's Tax return unveiling, one thing was finally proven: President Donald J. Trump is a very wealthy man who paid the legally required amount of taxes. He even filed them correctly which is more than I can say for myself. So thank you, Rachel Maddow, for showing the country once again that the left will run like hell without thinking to try and put forth the slightest possibility that the President might have done something wrong at some point in his life.

The night began with a tweet from Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, claiming they had President Trumps tax returns (seriously).

Social media buzzed with the anticipation of what, exactly, this tweet meant. The left immediately assumed their narrative that President Trump unlawfully evaded paying his taxes would be vindicated. The right assumed that no one in the IRS would lack the mental capacity to realize that leaking President Trump's taxes (which is illegal) would be a terrible idea.

The first question I had was how these 'tax returns' came into the possession of such a hard hitting news platform? Things like Donald Trump’s 15-year-old tax return do not just show up out of the blue. It was reported that they were put in an investigative reporter’s mailbox. This "reporter"  turned out to be David K. Johnston-a Trump biographer. I am sure it was put there by the Russians – right after they gave Jack those beanstalk beans.

When I was a kid, I remember a huge build up to a Geraldo Rivera special. Rivera was going to open Al Capone’s vault on the air. He did. It was empty. That empty vault was so much better than this. At least that could have been categorized as a current event. The tax returns in question by Maddow turned out to be from 2005. First the stern warning of the highly anticipated Stella blizzard that turned out to be a dud and now this?  Hell of a great job on the news today mainstream media.

Although the focus of Maddow's report was supposed to be the newly obtained copies of President Trump's taxes, she spent 20 minutes reciting a monolog of leftist conspiracies. Her 'breaking news' turned out to be not so 'breaking.' In addition, she was outflanked by none other than the President. The White House released a statement confirming the tax return with correct numbers an hour prior to her show airing. What followed was a world-class display of journalistic desperation – and it had to be. The left has been pushing the “Trump does not pay taxes” and the “Russian” narrative since election day. They had to get something out there to (dare I hope) put some closure to it all - especially with the new narrative that the Russians were involved in President Trump's tax return for that year.

Trying desperately to conflate him with some kind of scandal, Maddow mentioned that then citizen Donald Trump bought a $40 million house in a down market and subsequently sold it for $100 million. Maddow referred to the buyer as a (dramatic pause with equally dramatic music) “Russian oligarch” that was somehow tied to a Russian bank which was, in turn, somehow associated with Wilbur Ross – the current Secretary of Commerce. Time after time there were insinuations of possible ties to Russia or something equally nefarious without offering a shred of proof and simultaneously being ominous. For good measure, she even threw in a reminder that some U.S. Attorneys were recently fired. How that relates I have no idea.

The media behaves like some sort of journalistic masochist. They keep coming back to take a beating over and over by sticking their speculative necks out only to get them chopped off while they proceed to run around like tonight’s chicken dinner. A New York Times reporter went so far as to ask someone to commit a felony by soliciting the President’s tax returns. Can anything be more desperate? These people are actually willing to violate the law just to try to make someone look bad – and might not accomplish that at all. The media is supposed to be on the side of the people, to be the watchdog for those who cannot keep a watchful eye.

Maddow's report devolved quickly into a petition being circulated and signed requesting the release of full tax returns along with pictures of chicken balloons sporting a Trump haircut. The highlight of the evening came when Maddow announced she had three whole pages of the $150 million tax return and waived them around like a winning lotto ticket. Having lost the ability to claim that President Trump evaded paying taxes, she speculated whether or not he paid enough in taxes. In the span of about an hour, the left went from “he paid zero taxes” to “he paid $38 million in taxes” to “should he have paid more?” They failed to mention that the percent of taxes that he paid was relatively high. Tucker Carlson highlighted on his show that President Trump paid more in taxes than Barak Obama or Bernie Sanders- and this was over ten years ago! Conservatives on Twitter were having a bit of fun with this new knowledge - Thank you, Rachel!


Without fail, she also touched on the question of his charitable donations. Did he donate enough? Ok then.
It appears we were all deceived once again at the thought of the news providing news. It felt much like your first sexual experience. You talk about it for six weeks, it happens, and the actual experience is not nearly what you thought it would be. We still have no proof that the Russians did anything other than what they normally do concerning the US elections and FAR less than Obama did in the Israeli elections in 2015. I am sure an Emmy nomination next year for “fearless reporting” is in the cards for Ms. Maddow. The only suspense that remains is waiting to see what memes will come of this and what the SNL skit will be this weekend.

The next theory: Donald Trump let this get out to make the mainstream media look even more incompetent. I was not aware, until now, the mainstream media could possibly look more incompetent. Maddow single handily destroyed a leftist talking point all the while believing she had stumbled upon a breaking news story. All of America was left wondering what the hell had just happened. By the way Rachel, Trump killed Kennedy and Elvis is still alive.

Oh, and in case you missed it, here are a few hilarious tweets highlighting the sheer ineptness of poor Rachel Maddow's attempt at investigative journalism. Bless her heart.

I Was a Teenage Democrat

Teenage Democrat

I Was a Teenage Democrat

By Spencer Harris

Before I became politically conscious, I was the same bright-eyed optimist determined to drown in my naiveté as many of you were at the same age. It was November of 1992 with George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ross Perot. Perot was considered a fringe conservative with some good ideas and dump trucks full of money. George Bush was shooting for his second term and the fourth consecutive Republican presidential term following Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton was the former Governor of Arkansas. He was younger, less “Washington” and all over MTV.

Clinton's campaign had some strangely familiar slogans. “America is in trouble,” “The forgotten middle class,” “A new American health care plan,” “Put America to work” and “Improved education.” If that does not sound familiar, then you have not been paying attention the past two years. He was the people’s candidate while incumbent President Bush was all about Washington.

It was a no-brainer. Your parents were Republicans, and no one wanted to be like his or her parents right? Clinton was younger, playing the sax on Arsenio, smoked dope, had an earring once and was a complete womanizer. If you did not like William Jefferson Clinton, there was something wrong with you. Clinton took a narrow victory, and we were all vindicated. I am sure that I would not have considered myself a Democrat if I knew what that meant. I can say without a doubt I was certainly leaning that way.

Now, I am the "old parent", and since then I have voted straight ticket Republican in every election. I would not dream of voting Democrat today no matter the level of government. I philosophically and morally disagree with practically every position of the left. Looking back at it, though, it was not such a bad thing. The Democrats seemed to be more for the common man, the little guy, Middle American and not for big business and old, rich white guys.

During this most recent election, something hit me. I never realized how many people I knew were hard-core Democrats. I was aware of their left leanings, but I attributed it to certain things. For example, I have friends who are minorities. I have friends who are gay. I also had friends who left high school and went to college in the north or California and had adopted that geographical belief system. You know how someone feels ideologically just from having everyday discussions with them, but I have always considered them a friend first and a political adversary (for lack of a better term) second.

This election changed things. You saw people saying downright nasty things to people they had known their entire lives. I have to admit, you may have occasionally seen it from me. If someone asks me what I think, I will tell you and any offenses are a casualty of political conversation. For me, worrying about being polite in some conversations can skew the message off point and cause me to say things that are not conveyed as intended. Needless to say, the side effect of that can be a little offensive. People would email me outside of conversations I would have on social media asking what had happened to that person and what made them so intolerant.

It forced me to start to wonder how the Democratic party had changed so drastically from then to now. Democrats, in general, used to be for all the things I considered relatable. They have since morphed into militant new age liberals that are as intolerant as they are difficult to talk to. Everything is hyperbole, everyone is some sort of “ist, ” and anything bad in the world is because of America. All of this happened in a little over 20 years – a relatively short period of political time. There have been just over two presidents since Bill Clinton, and I thank God each day that one of them was not another Clinton. It has gone from disagreement and discourse to the obstruction and attempted dismantling of anything that is from the other side. You no longer have to be opposed to an idea or wait to even see what that idea might be. So what drove this change? Have we become so intolerant and divisive that we no longer hope to interact in a civil way?

Luckily for the soon to be throngs of my adoring fans, I have a theory. Before I get into all of this, if I say something that offends or irritates anyone, I absolutely do not apologize. These happen to be things I agree with and have deducted from careful observation. Republicans tend to focus on issues like the economy (good for all), national security (good for all), lower taxes (good for all) smaller and less intrusive government (good for all-see vault7). Inversely, look at Democrats. Free college (group focused), LBGTQ rights (group focused), abortion rights (group focused), global warming (group focused). There were even several democrats who publicly stated that global warming was a bigger threat than ISIS.

America is the most culturally and socially diverse country in history. We are different and there is no denying it. The Democrats use these differences and conflate them with bigotry to drive a wedge between groups of society. For example, I am against illegal immigration which is a policy and not immigrants who are people. People who are against gay marriage are labeled anti-gay. If you support law enforcement, you are racist. All of this is used to gin up fear and anxiety in an effort to divide and conquer. In the end, they get elected, ignore those groups and do it all again in four years. If you still aren’t convinced that Democrats will attack anything and anyone who has a differing opinion, try going undercover as a conservative for a month and watch your social media turn into a hate-filled chat room and probably be asked to cut your own tongue out with a rusty butter knife. You will be treated as a puppy kicker who has zero empathy for anyone not of your same race and gender. Fortunately, I grew out of that phase of my life. I don’t have to live with the constant pressure of having to shame people into enlightenment.

Hillary Clinton thought she could just Clinton her way into the presidency based on her husband’s success. That success was based on things like welfare reform, balanced budgets, and controlled immigration. Today’s Democrat party is nothing like she remembered. She was far too right of Barack Obama in 2012 and lost the primary. She could not sell the fact that she was as far left as Bernie or Warren in 2016. As a result, her party wavered in their support and stayed home. Donald Trump won the presidency on many of the same tenants her husband won on in 1992 - including being on TV as much as possible. Both parties are changing. The Republicans are becoming more centrist and populist while the Democrats are becoming more and more radical. The good things in society – success, law & order, responsibility, etc. – are now seen as character flaws or tools of oppression. They use clever marketing schemes to advance their agendas while simultaneously guilting the “main stream” into submission. Illegal immigrants are “dreamers”, gun control becomes “gun responsibility”, welfare becomes “entitlements”.

Calling it whatever you want will not change the fact that the Democratic Party is lost. It has become the party of the few and not the many. They need to realize that America is not some pit of evil sitting in the middle of the western hemisphere. America is a great place. No country is more generous, more prosperous, more successful, more pioneering, or more innovative. I’m not sure how they lost sight of that. Maybe it wasn’t enough for them or maybe the party has been hijacked. Either way, the Democratic Party is spiraling down at an alarming pace and becoming more socialist with every cause. The party has come a LONG way in 25 years, but it has gone down a progressive path that focuses on the individual and not the country. Luckily for me, I grew up and chose a different path.

The Democratic party needs a wake-up call. They are losing supporters left and right. The farther left they go, the more moderates jump ship to the Republicans. They are too blinded by their own narratives to see the imminent destruction of their party. Will they wake up and make changes? Or, contrarily, will they choose to continue down this disastrous path and wake up post-election 2018 and once again wonder why they lost "bigly"? I guess we have to wait and see. As a Republican, I hope they remain blissfully clueless. For now, watching them spiral out of control is providing better entertainment than late night TV.

Now is he your President

Joint Session

So... Now is he your President?

By Spencer Harris

Can the country ever become united again? If you watch the news, you have to consider it unlikely. Tonight is President Trump’s (still sounds funny) first address to a joint session of Congress, and the country could not be more divided. Every group needs an identity to push their message whether it be LGBTQSDTC (or whatever it is now) or the Tea Party. Forging that identity requires distinguishing yourself in ways that bring your fight to the front lines to make that message the most effective. Take into account each party’s honored invitees; the difference could not be greater in contrast. The president invited, among others, Jamiel Shaw, Sr., the father of a high school football star whose son was fatally shot by an illegal immigrant in 2008. In comparison, Democrats invited several people who were essentially stuck at the airport. One of these changes our lives forever and the lives of others who will never know what they missed. The other is a problem I have gone through but is being amped up by political fervor. We have to become more focused if we are going to become the great nation we all want to be. I am not exactly sure what the direction or tone of tonight’s speech will be. The next step is to wait until the president enters Statuary Hall and proceeds into the Congress.

I am a people watcher. Anyone who has known me for any amount of time will back that up. Did anyone else see Congressman Ryan pop a Life Saver in his mouth prior to the beginning of the speech? I enjoy the pomp that goes into any presidential event. Before anything starts you can see whose side people are on and a weird twinkle in the eye of the party in power. As the president is announced and enters, the division becomes more apparent. In a show of solidarity, Congressional female Democrats tried to show a united front by wearing all white as a shout out to Queen Democrat Hillary. They didn't realize the entire internet would liken it to a Klan gathering - this was historically ironic, to say the least (If you are lost, please see the spiritually moving article “Today’s Fake News Becomes Tomorrow’s Fake History” by Spencer Harris). The applause is about 60% enthusiastic and 40% polite. You have to wonder how nervous he is. In a way, this is the first real push towards his re-election unfiltered by news or surrounded by pageantry. The first thing I notice is that his jacket is buttoned – a welcomed reversal of his inaugural address. He seems rather at ease. He approaches the podium and acknowledges the Vice President (who could be Race Bannon’s doppelganger) and the Speaker of the House, hands them a copy of the speech and is ready to begin.

After the applause dies and starts and dies again, with Melania looking so Melania, he begins. He starts off playing the hits – a recognition of Black History Month and condemnation of a recent shooting in Kansas City and other recent violent acts. There are many references to liberty and justice and of America being a torch that will light up the world. The speech is one of the dreams of a great America which has become a nightmare. He builds slowly, describing a sovereign country that has felt a need for change but has lost its way. The speech shapes up with a certain duality that aptly describes the current vibe of the country and how it is being once again returned to the people that fostered it for almost 241 years. He throws in a placating “Make America Great Again, House” and the crowd erupts – more than half of them anyway. The lack of applause is understandable. A little over 12 hours earlier the President was blaming the previous administration for information leaks and saying that one of the senior Democrats in the House, Nancy Pelosi, is “incompetent.” It would be hard for me to argue with their lack of enthusiasm.

His plan is bold yet grand. It is difficult to imagine how vast our visions are for the same America where we all live. He continues with his achievements since he has taken office. It is hard to believe he has only been in office for just over a month. He is not the orator that President Obama was – far from it. However, he connects in a common sense way that is easy to understand, yet far from simple. His next comment addresses his goal to build the wall and his plan to create an office called V.O.I.C.E. (Victims of Immigrant Crime Engagement). In short, the program blocks any resources used to advocate for undocumented immigrants' rights and instead earmarks them to help the victims of immigrant crimes and their families. Makes sense right? This yields the most split reaction of the night – half the room stands and applauds; the other half sits and boos. The first rah-rah moment comes next. He does not pause. He does not wince. He leans in and says quite simply, “We are also taking strong measure to protect our nation from radical Islamic terrorism.” It has been a while since the President said those words in such a forum. It felt good. He then confirms our alliance with Israel. At this point, Democrats are looking around wondering what is happening. His tone remains calm but deliberate. He articulates with a bleak honesty the current state of our economy but tempers it with successes and a promise to turn it all around.

The president continues to push for immigration reform, the repeal of ACA (Obamacare if you do not know), and a focus on infrastructure. He also gets in a sly dig by mentioning that the current governor of Kentucky states that Obamacare is unsustainable in his state – pretty shrewd considering the Democratic rebuttal is to be given by, get ready, the former governor of Kentucky.

It was good to see role models such as Denisha Merriweather recognized for their positive achievements and not their victim status. The president continued by imploring people to work together and showing a genuine support for law enforcement. Then comes what is commonly being referred to as the defining moment of the speech. The widow of Ryan Owens, Carryn Owens, was recognized as a tribute to the ultimate sacrifice of her husband’s life. If you did not tear up during that applause, it is very likely you do not have an ounce of empathy. In the end, he even threw in a “God Bless the United States.”

By the end of the speech, he seemed to look at the Democratic side of the room with an urge to have both parties work together – not for a better legacy for him, but for a better America. He offered a message that the status quo does not have to remain the status quo. Things like poverty will never be eliminated, but the cycle can be broken if the opportunity is there. There was (dare I say) a renewed optimism that has been seemingly lacking in recent memory. He asked the people to believe in America – to believe in themselves. Republicans and Democrats can work together- of course, they can. However, for some unknown reason, they refuse to. Common sense tells you they can work together, but when you try, it is difficult to name something about which they agree. They will say they agree in public. However, it is easier to be politically expedient at the moment.

The speech itself could be the beginning of a discussion at least. However, as soon as it was complete, Democrats scattered like the roaches when you turned the light on in your college apartment. There was not a handshake or a congratulatory nod to be found. Republicans said it was more than expected. It is hard to say if that was a result of low expectations, but they generally saw it as rather optimistic. Of course, you can dissent, but I do believe an honest person who claimed to want to work together would give it the benefit of the doubt.

The bottom line is that it was just a speech - just words. If you believe the President, the ultimate direction of America is up to the citizens of the country. We will determine the course and the future successes of our country. The next chapter is unwritten, but the feeling of the future, to me, has a tremendously positive direction for everyone. Love him or hate him, President Trump is breaking the mold and going in bold new directions. He is going to make mistakes. In four or eight years he will be a footnote in history and the people will remain. E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one.

Flynn Resignation

Flynn Resignation; Citizen wire Taps; and a Ton of Speculation

By A.H. Sullivan

Monday, February 13th, 2017 – Michael Flynn resigned from his appointed position of National Security Advisor in President Trump’s Executive Cabinet. The week leading up to his resignation, General Flynn (Ret.) was consistently bombarded with political and media scrutiny. News stories have highlighted involvement by the FBI and the then acting Attorney General in interviews with General Flynn about the discussions. It is documented that the Attorney General notated to the President that she feared Flynn was “susceptible to blackmail” by the Russian government due to the new findings that Flynn had mislead American political officials on the contents of the calls.

Shortly after all of this took place, a source inside the political structure departments (judicial, justice, executive, etc...) leaked this confidential internal information to David Ignatius (Washington Post), who then printed the classified information. The media onslaught immediately began, quickly escalating to calls for investigations and resignations.

At this time, there have been no charges filed and no further investigation on Flynn’s conversation with the Russian Diplomat. In fact, some have leaked that Flynn never engaged directly in a discussion about any protected topics. Thus stating, nothing illegal has been proven to have taken place.

It will come to many that this is, in fact, ALL we know on a factual level. All other information being thrown around is purely speculation. Whether that is well researched and source backed speculation or not is up to the readers and audience to determine for themselves.

Anti-Flynn Speculations
Currently, speculation of Flynn’s discussions with Russia has garnered almost absolute condemnation in the course of 3 days. These speculations have led many to the full belief that Flynn discussed sanctions, and his plans to lift them, with the Russian Diplomat directly and unequivocally. This is not in fact known, as anti-administration individuals are predominantly pushing this narrative. At this point, all reports for this are simply unverifiable.

More speculation has risen as to why the White House did not respond accordingly to the Department of Justice and Attorney General’s claims about potential danger with Flynn in office. This has evolved into an obvious high-level government conspiracy which has very little evidence other than circumstantial claims and timelines.

Finally, these particular anti-Flynn speculations have fueled the lingering Presidential ties with Russia’s Vladimir Putin. While this issue continues to be a partisan argument, it is nonetheless still, unproven and ill-evidenced.

Pro-Flynn Speculation
There are two sides to every story, so highlighting the pro-administration speculation is also necessary. Many commentators and political experts have cited that this is a concerted effort at continuing to delegitimize the Donald Trump Presidency. President Trump has repeatedly called the Russia conspiracy “Fake News” predominantly being pushed by left-wing media sources. The President’s supporters continue to back this claim up as well.

Other speculations have included Flynn being forced out by Media over-involvement, and hypocrisy of reporting. Many conservative factions have argued that Media bias is evident in the way mainstream news organizations have purposefully over reported and over speculated (beyond reasonable suspicions) on the Flynn resignation to the general public specifically to stir public emotions. This is why prominent talk radio host Rush Limbaugh has called the mainstream (drive by) media the ultimate resistance to the Trump Administration.

Fox News’s opinionated writer and host Sean Hannity has also weighed in giving compelling circumstantial evidence as to why this resignation is the result of an obvious Democrat Sting Operation.

Again, we must all remember that on both sides of this issue, we can only describe these opinions and claims as circumstantial at this point. Whether or not the “evidence” seems stacked in your belief’s favor, remembering this involves both Government and the Media – both institutions less than credible and fact-based, especially in recent history.

What Should YOU Worry About
Tying in the speculations and the currently known facts, there are many important implications of this case ordinary Americans need to be worried about.

First, General Flynn’s conversation would have taken place before Trump was inaugurated, meaning the evident wiretaps by the Justice Department and FBI would have been conducted before Flynn was a government official. This means Flynn’s phone conversations were those of a Private Citizen. This could be a breach of privacy, although this has been defended as common practice for those transitioning into the government spotlight since Flynn was on Trump's transition team. Still, where does this line end and the next one begin? If the FBI can wiretap a transition team member’s phone calls, how far does that go into civilian life where we have privacy clauses against our government. Additionally, the NSA is supposed to obtain a FISA order to gather information from private citizen phone calls.

Second, there are government officials that have NOT resigned or been fired for far worse in past administrations. This has led many to want more transparency as to why Flynn left (or was asked to leave). It could be that the pressure was just too much, but some, like investigative journalist Bob Woodward, stated: "All my alarm bells went off. Why is he gone for this? I think lots of people had the same feeling who are in the media. So they're asking the question, 'What really goes on here?'" Now this may fall into the speculation category as well, but a real need for transparency in our Government and Media is necessary. If it is a government conspiracy or a Media effort, the American People need to question any analyzations that are circumstantial in nature consistently.

Third, and finally, the release of the confidential wiretap information is indeed a crime. That means the individual(s) need to be prosecuted for the transgression. Americans must always be worried about high-level individuals releasing confidential material to the public. There are correct and proper whistleblower procedures that individuals with damning evidence of foul play need to follow, not resort to public release. Piggybacking off of this worry, there has been a discussion about whether the Reporter (David Ignatius) will be prosecuted for covering the leak or not. Gregg Jarrett (a Fox News Anchor and Former Defense Attorney) claimed in a piece about prosecuting the reporter:

“This would be a mistake. While the statute itself clearly criminalizes the publishing of classified material, the First Amendment should and must render that portion of the law unconstitutional as it applies to a journalist. The Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” Just because Congress made such a law does not mean it can survive constitutional challenge”.

Anytime government infringes on the rights of the people, all citizens should be hyper vigilant. The American People must watch this closely, and if the Reporter is charged, it means the government has stepped into a realm of attacking free speech and freedom of the press. The Constitution encourages a free press to check the government, which many have felt the Media has forgotten.

Going forward, I urge readers to continue to receive information from multiple sources. With the vast issue of partisan reporting, circumstantial evidence can always be made to sound extremely convincing. At this point, we are not sure what the final outcome of this situation will be but as far as we can tell, General Flynn is no longer the National Security Advisor to the Trump Administration, and the government will continue with appointing a replacement.

Regardless of what is discovered in the future, a call for more transparency by all involved members must be demanded. One party in this ordeal is either lying or more deeply involved than one can discern simply from reading the headlines.

How Child Proof Caps Ruined America

How Child-Proof Caps Ruined America: One Man's Struggle to Find an Answer

By Spencer Harris

Hey, Conservatives!!!! Looking for a Scapegoat? Blame Dr. Henri J. Breault.

Dr. Henri J. Breault. Never heard of him have you? You aren’t alone. This isn’t Jonas Salk, Marie Curie, Alexander Fleming or Isaac Newton. These are well-known, very influential people who have changed the very course of human history. All were top minds in their respective fields found in any high school textbook subject to the most obscure detail that may or may not have been on a final exam. Salk cured polio. Curie advanced physics and destroyed barriers in her time. Fleming discovered penicillin. Newton did damn near everything in his day, the guy invented calculus. Those four are undisputed titans of their field, but Dr. Breault has influenced the current day much more.

Dr. Breault received his medical degree from the University of Western Ontario in 1936. He practiced medicine for over 40 years. He is in the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame for his contributions to the sciences. Sadly, he died in 1983. It was his work in the mid-1970s that has indirectly influenced people around the globe. His focus of expertise was pharmacology with a particular interest in pediatrics and the accidental poisoning of children. No doubt this is a noble pursuit. As a general rule, we all admire such pursuits for there is no nobility in being superior to your fellow man, but being superior to your former self (my apologies to Hemmingway). For all of his great accomplishments, Dr. Breault had one significant development that would change the path of humanity and, indeed, the direction of the western world. In 1967, Dr. Breault helped design something known as the “palm and turn” which we know today as the child proof cap.

At the time, and of course in general, this seemed like a sensible precaution that any parent – including myself – would see as a godsend. However, there are unintended consequences for every action no matter how good the intentions are. We have all felt the sting of this consequence in every area of our lives. Most of you have never taken the time to put the pieces together. Also, it is with sincere hope that the lot of you don’t sit around and think about moronic things like this. Hopefully, most of you are working hard to make your lives better.

Think about this. Before 1970, everyone doing the ridiculous, life-threatening things you watch on the internet, would be weeded out by the natural selection (see Darwinism) by drinking something under the sink after they were told not to by their parents. These people would have died and not been around to make the rest of us shake our head in amazement. Now fast forward to today. Those 6-year-olds would not have grown up and met someone as intellectually bereft as them and made babies. These babies would not have followed in their parents’ footsteps and drank a gallon of bleach thereby saving the family unspeakable grief. However, those caps were in place and those parents were spared that grief only to have it manifest itself in the form of kids skipping school for their “cause” they can tell you zero about. You may hear them repeat things their parents have said or what they have read on their preferred social site or favorite late-night TV program. Now that’s a generality and there are actually informed, intelligent protesters out there who believe deeply in what they are for or against as it were. However, and I saw this first-hand during the January 21st women’s march in DC, a vast majority of them were doing their canned chants and yelling about losing their rights and then going back to their dorms at Georgetown - which I found ironic. Just over a week ago, the world saw violent protesters injure people and destroy property without an ounce of empathy in an effort to squelch someone from saying something they don’t happen to agree with. Nothing truly gets people on board like smashing a Starbucks or blasting a woman with pepper spray who was simply standing there not agreeing with them *gasp*. I have yet to figure out why every guy in the country didn’t drive there and beat the hell out of that sorry toad. Maybe that’s one of those gender role things that have come under scrutiny.

It saddens me that the people who cherish America the most are the ones that come here from other countries. My mother got her citizenship about ten years ago. It was a very proud moment for her, and I was humbled to share it with her. I can tell you there is nothing more enlightening than realizing you can’t fully appreciate the truly great things America offers if you live here your entire life. The good news is it’s not your fault. It’s just a fact that you don’t know anything different.

In the past year, I have seen the language grow more vicious while the intellectual efforts of those who choose to engage grow more inept. I will never achieve the heights of the greats mentioned above, but I consider myself a fairly intelligent person. I went to a decent mid-range college and have above average common sense. I can outsmart my children on a regular basis, and so far, the decisions I have made regarding my life have turned out ok. Most of this I learned from my parents who had far less. The single thing I always did without fail was to stay out from under the sink.

Maybe one day this profound thought piece will automatically populate in a Google search. Perhaps it can become a cliché that would substitute for more hateful language. Maybe even if you think it to yourself when you see something you consider borderline insane, you may laugh a little and find a way to drop the hostility and power through a difference or two with a verbal sparring partner. Try it once, try it now….."damn child-proof caps ruined everything." Sure, it sounds ridiculous right now, but the next time you see someone try to rob a gun store with a knife or see the tag that says, “made in China” on your American Flag, or pretty much anything involving youtube, rednecks, and fire. You may just shrug it off and go to a happy place. Trust me….it’s warm there with great margaritas.

Follow me on Twitter

Fake News- Extra, Extra Read All About It!

Fake News- Extra, Extra Read All About It

By Spencer Harris

Fake News. We've all heard the term, but what is it exactly? How do you identify it? Most importantly, why do so many people from all walks of life and every background continue to use it as a basis of their arguments and beliefs? The name itself is a contradiction. The news was, at one time, defined as the reporting of facts. More recently, however, it has become a sensationalized version of any event told from the perspective of the journalist. It's a common practice to use questionable sources and reach dramatic conclusions. It's told more from the sales perspective of "know your audience" and with less drive to inform your audience. The result is essentially the media equivalent of a hot dog – no one knows what's really in it (and you don't dare ask), you just consume it and go.

Ninety percent of what I think, write, feel or express comes from the right. It would be fair, though intellectually lazy, to say that whatever comes from CNN would be seen by me as fake. We aren't talking global warming, the Kennedy assassination, Roswell or random Bigfoot sightings. These are accepted based on what you already believe. Fake News is about news items being presented by reputable agencies or reporters strictly to misinform certain sects of people or the public at large. And while these fantastic works are mainly shoveled by the left, there are plenty of examples submitted by the right. There are many reasons these stories are pushed and have become ironically mainstream. Any story can go from ordinary to fantastic by throwing in a few hyperboles. News is a business, and a business needs money to survive. An excellent headline alone can bring in extra cash while any errors or misstatements can be retracted later.

An example is Dan Rather's 2004 report about George W. Bush's military service. What makes this story so ludicrous is the source. This was CBS News. This was Dan Rather – one of the most respected reporters of the time on a news show spin off of 60 Minutes called 60 Minutes II (named by the geniuses at CBS obviously). Now, in their defense, the name of the show had to be changed later to 60 Minutes Wednesday because it confused the audience that the same show was on two different nights. In short, CBS used an ill-advised source to provide, shall we say, ill-advised documents to run with a blatantly false story meant to aid then Senator John Kerry in the defeat of President Bush's second term. The document, written in Word font was said to be from a 1970s typewriter. These documents supposedly showed how President Bush failed to complete duty requirements upon enlistment in the Texas Air National Guard. So they, of course, called it "Rathergate." (note: I really HATE adding "gate" to the end of something to indicate a delicious scandal – it's overdone) In this case, Dan Rather and CBS wanted to help defeat Bush so badly that they were duped by something I may not be able to pull against my rather computer savvy 9-year-old.

From the right, I give you, "Pizzagate" (as I slice my wrist). Here, the right takes the email language from senior members of the Clinton campaign, makes up a few hieroglyphs, and voila! – A DC-based, speakeasy, human-trafficking, pedophile hangout and, of course, Satanic rituals (complete with pizza!) was born. The volume and detail of the tweets regarding what each word meant, detail of meeting plans, etc. was tough to sift through. It started with alleged links to emails on now disgraced Anthony Weiner's laptop released by Wikileaks. Several sunlight-starved Lord of the Rings fans put together a rather elaborate story and spread it around the dark corners of the internets. It slowly worked its way into the light by way of rumor and sites like Reddit. Most people love dealing in rumors. It gives them an opportunity to make the story their own by plugging in details that fit their beliefs. Facts can be so cold and solid. While a few details may be changed to enhance a story, it essentially remains the same. In the end, common sense took over, and this was completely debunked…..thank God. Still, I could contact people on twitter today and tell them it was untrue and get severe drawback. I'm instantly uninformed and naïve, etc. It seems this disinformation lives in every corner of our lives.

Print publications I can almost understand. They have been circling the drain for years now. They are pressured to sell more copies and boost sales. The common sense thing would be to print interesting stories or employ better writers. However, the easy thing to do is to print headlines dripping with sensationalism (see the National Enquirer). They have become driven to get the story first instead of getting the story right. Take for example the article "A Rape on Campus" published by Rolling Stone in November 2014. In the article, a student called "Jackie" laid claim that several fraternity members raped her as part of some pledge initiation ritual. Although this type of thing is probable, the mere fact that it was published as factual goes beyond the label of "fake news." It did focus more light on catfishing and cast more doubt on a far more scarring crime. The fake news took the focus off of the original intent of the article and shined it elsewhere. While it's true that things like catfishing are a problem, you would be hard-pressed to find any sane person who held these incidents in the same light.  The Rolling Stone article capitalized on the fact that people focus on exactly and only the details they want to hear.

To look at social media – and we all do – you see that most people are fake and living in an artificial world. It makes sense their news would be fake as well. Everyone on social media looks happy and issue free while taking skinny, duck-face pictures of themselves – sometimes in the messiest of bathrooms, but that's for another time. It has always been this way even before social media. For example, people would go into debt to drive cars that made them look more successful while living in hell's outhouse.

The inevitable is this: the continued one-ups-manship of today's media will continue to feed this dragon. The ultimate demise will be ours as we become less informed and more polarized. As a result, we will debate less, tweet more and eventually lose a vital skill – respectful dialogue. Dialogue, in fact, turns out to be essential as there is only one person of the over six billion on this earth that agrees with everything you do. You're reading this to them now.

Follow me on Twitter

Judge Issued Stay Order on Immigration Executive Order


Judge Issued Stay Order on Immigration Executive Order

By A.H. Sullivan

Dominating the nation’s television sets are the controversial Executive Order issued by President Trump on January 27th, and now the issued stay order on critical portions of the immigration “ban” by Judge James Robart of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington state. The stay order was issued Friday, which essentially left the Executive Order in limbo, returning immigration operations to pre-Executive order process. Both sides of the aisle are vigorously fighting for their views to be honored at the conclusion of this legal proceeding.

President Donald Trump’s administration has been pleading for the Executive Order to be reinstated as the legalities of the situation ensue. They are arguing the stay order allows an open window for possible terrorists and illegal immigrants to enter the country quickly before a legal decision is made. The opposition claims (as reported by CNN) President Trump has violated the “Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution because it shows government preference for one religion over another, and Equal Protection Clause -- part of the 14th Amendment -- because it discriminates based on religion and national origin”.

How can you accurately dissect and analyze the two different opinions regarding this Executive Order? It is important to start with identifying the extreme differences between illegal and immoral. Was the Executive Order illegally issued, implemented, or constructed? The simple answer is no. The Constitution and the United States Congress have given the President power to One, issue Executive Orders (regardless how one feels about the use of them); Two, change or implement immigration clauses and processes to better protect the United States.

Now, is the Executive Order immoral? That subjective determination is viewed differently across the board. Most Democrats believe this Order is just that, wrong and un-American. The problem with this defense is that there is no provable understanding as to why this is immoral. The Stay Order issued by Judge Robart has been met with heavy and unwavering criticism concerning the alleged lack of legal analysis and the possible Partisan purposes at the helm of the Order.

Recently, Republican Senator Mike Lee (Utah) has stated that after reading all of the Executive Order and Legislative powers concerns in regards to immigration, he sees no illegality in the issuance of this immigration “ban”. He added that he disagreed with the implementation and roll-out of the order, but also acknowledged that it was his opinion and not rooted in lawfulness. After reading the stay order, Senator Lee claimed on the Glenn Beck Radio Program, that he had never seen a legal order of this magnitude, issued with such few words and with such little legal analysis. It is significant that one of the more respected legal minds in Congress views this stay order to be misguided at best or solely based on Partisanship from what others have gathered.

So what happens next? Where do we go from here regarding the immigration order? The restraining order issued (stay order) will be reviewed and decisioned by three West Coast Circuit Judges today (February 7, 2017) at 6:00 p.m. (ET). This will determine whether the stay order against the Immigration Executive Order is valid or not. If it is decisioned as valid, more legal proceedings will take place deciding whether the Executive Order can be implemented again differently to accomplish the administration’s purpose while not infringing on any clauses to the 14th and 1st Amendment. If the stay order is reviewed and denied validity, the Immigration Executive Order will be reissued as law. Regardless of the resolution in this hearing, an appeal will most certainly follow rendering the previous resolutions as temporary. Let us all remember the Supreme Court is currently in partisan gridlock. This means a final decision of the validity of either the Stay Order or the original Executive Order may not be made anytime soon.

While partisanship questions of the court directing the hearing this evening have been raised, supporters of the Immigration “ban” will have to wait unnervingly for the ruling of validity. For those who oppose the Executive Order, the West Coast Circuit Court decisioning this hearing, they can rest assured that this judiciary is known to be one of the more liberal/Democrat courts in the United States.


World Was 3

WORLD WAR 3 - Isn't That Nice?

By Thomas Wise

On Monday, Jan 30, 2017, Yemeni Houthi "rebels" took three bomb-laden small boats and smashed into a Saudi Arabian frigate in the Red Sea, off the coast of Yemen. Two Saudis died and three were wounded.

According to Fox News, the suicide-bombing jihadists shouted, in Arabic, "Allahu akbar, death to America, death to Israel, a curse on the Jews and victory for Islam." All of a sudden, there are whispers that World War III has begun. Why?

Apparently, that generic radical Islamic war-cry means this attack was meant for a U.S. warship. Why?

Apparently, the so-called "Muslim ban" initiated through President Donald Trump's Executive Order has set off outrage to such a degree that Islamic radicals are now attempting to kill Americans. Why?

Apparently, the Executive Order which calls for identification and some vetting of people traveling to the United States from seven Islamic countries is too much to bear. The shock, the dismay, the disappointment, the oppression, of the Islamic people! Why?

Apparently, everything was going along swimmingly until President Trump came along. OK, let's hold on just a minute here!

First of all, jihadists have been bombing American targets for decades. "The USS Cole bombing was a terrorist attack against the United States Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Cole on 12 October 2000, while it was being refueled in Yemen's Aden harbor" (quoted from Wikipedia). This was during Bill Clinton's presidency, when also the US Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, was bombed (Aug 07, 1998). Oh, and let's not forget that Osama bin Laden's FIRST attack on the World Trade Center ALSO came under Bill Clinton's watch (Feb 26, 1993).

So let us please dispense with the idea that jihadists began their attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, or that they especially hate Republicans. They hate America, as is evident from their war-cry.

Second, in 2016 Barack Obama directed the dropping of 26,171 bombs, of which 12,192 fell on Syria, 12,095 fell on Iraq, 496 fell on Libya, 35 fell on Yemen, and 14 fell on Somalia. None fell on Iran or Sudan. Apparently, Mr. Obama believed 5 of "Trump's 7 countries" constituted some sort of threat to America. In fact, Obama declared war on those five countries. Oh, we can parse words and deeds, but you don't bomb inside a country's borders unless you are at war with them.

What about Iran? We're not at war with them, are we? Here's the rub: Obama as President handed over to Iran billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets, and his blessing to continue enriching uranium. Again, we can parse words, whether that's the actual deal, whether it's a deal at all, and so forth, but our new President, Donald Trump, made it VERY clear that Obama's Iran deal was bad- REALLY bad. How bad?

This Daily Caller article (read here), does a good job explaining just how much damage Barack Obama did with his Iran deal. In fact, DURING the negotiations, the "supreme leader" of Iran, Khamenei, called Obama a liar and manipulator: "He accused Washington of holding negotiations with Iran only so it can influence the country and impose its demands, he said, according to state-run Press TV." (read more here)

So it's not as if Iran is a friend of the United States, nor is this a change in Iranian temperament or rhetoric due to Donald Trump. No, folks, Iran has been an enemy of the United States since at LEAST 1979, when they took the US embassy hostage. The so-called "Muslim ban" (which is neither) is not the match that "tipped over" Iran. It's just another excuse for Iran to do what it does best - spout death and destruction.

The Yemeni Houthis are Iran-backed (details here). This should not be a surprise to anyone who pays attention. Nevertheless, well-known Leftist apologist website Snopes published an article claiming that the number of Americans killed by citizens from the 7 countries in questions equals... ZERO (read more here). Yes, my friends, apparently no Americans were ever killed by Libyans, Somalians, Iraqis, Iranians, Sudanese, Yemenis, or Syrians. If I just say the word "Benghazi" the entire premise of Snopes and associated "journalists" is brought down. Even so, I can name many more episodes of deadly incidents. For example, read this CNS article regarding a Somali terrorist killing in Minnesota.

Yet, I don't have to cite any news articles. The State Department, in 2014, under Barack Obama, ALREADY named Iran, Sudan, and Syria as state sponsors of terror (read more here). In 2015, again under Obama, the State Dept reported (see report here) that Somalia is infiltrated by Al-Shabaab terrorists. The same report states: "The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) remained the greatest threat globally, maintaining a formidable force in Iraq and Syria, including a large number of foreign terrorist fighters."

President Trump, as America's top cop, is not only ENTIRELY within his constitutional authority to exclude ANY person from entering the United States, but also has a DUTY to fully investigate ANY person entering from ANY place the State Department has deemed a hotbed of terrorism.

It should be very clear that anyone saying World War 3 is upon us due to a random terrorist attack, which is similar to many other terrorist attacks, is either naive or a propagandist.

It should be very clear that anyone saying President Trump's Executive Order inflames Muslims to terrorism is incoherent. If checking their identification causes them to perpetrate terrorism, his Order is more than reasonable.

It should be very clear that President Trump is CONTINUING the policies of counter-terrorism begun under former President Obama, except with much more vigor.

The key element of difference is the media, which is not only spotlighting Mr. Trump's every move but also deliberately twisting the facts to make Trump appear reckless.

There is nothing reckless in President Trump's Executive Order. There is, however, great recklessness in the media spewing its hatred towards our President as he does his damnedest to keep America safe.

SCOTUS Pick: Protests and Filibuster Now Dominating Media


SCOTUS Pick: Protests and Filibuster Now Dominating Media

By A.H. Sullivan

Tuesday, January 31st: President Trump announced that his nomination for the vacant Supreme Court seat, previously held by Antonin Scalia, was to be Neil Gorsuch. The media onslaught immediately erupted. Protests at the Court steps commenced and media pundits’ slanted analyzations of his record became the talk of the town (more appropriately perhaps - the country). However, It is important to take a step back and present this nominee with the credibility he deserves.

Gorsuch graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991. He then spent multiple years at an Oxford University constituent college in England, under a multitude of renowned philosophy and law professors, while earning his Doctorate of Philosophy. Gorsuch clerked under two separate Supreme Court Justices and also spent time in the Department of Justice. His most prominent career steps came while on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals which he began in 2006.

Gorsuch has ruled and opined on many higher profile cases (most notably is that of the Hobby Lobby Case) in which he has consistently upheld strong conservative decisions. Many conservative figureheads in politics and media have been stalwartly vocal about their acceptance of Gorsuch’s nomination. Some figures to mention are Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Paul Ryan, Fox News (wide acceptance), Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity. Although, anyone involved or connected to politics knows that with one side approving, there is another side dissenting.

Democrats have vowed to make approving Gorsuch all but impossible, even before Gorsuch was named as the nominee. Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon stated, “This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat…We will use every lever in our power to stop this.” This quote has come from recent speculation (and admittance to date) that Senate Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch in his nomination hearings. These outcries are in response to how Republicans handled Obama’s Supreme Court Justice nomination after Justice Scalia’s death, Merrick Garland.

Merrick Garland was nominated for the empty Supreme Court seat in March of 2016. Republicans stated they would not be registering an appointment hearing on his behalf, due to the fact that 2016 was a Presidential Election year. Prior to Merrick Garland's nomination, there had not been a Supreme Court nomination in the final year of an exiting president since Johnson in 1969; However, those nominations were ultimately withdrawn for that reason. Democrats accused Republicans of using an informal type of filibuster, in which Republicans accused Democrats of purposefully rushing a nomination in Obama’s exiting presidency year.

To begin this current nomination review, defining a senate filibuster may be a good place to start. A filibuster is a political tool/procedure (in today’s terms) in which discussion and debate over a proposed action in government are uncharacteristically extended, allowing for members of the governing body to delay and/or prevent a solution vote or confirmation.

We must not forget that Senator Murkley, as previously discussed, was a leader in the proposing force that worked to change the legality of the filibuster procedure just a few years ago. This has received much attention, bringing forth accusations of hypocrisy and the playing of political party line games in the Senate.

Trump has pressed Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell heavily, in case that Senate Democrats filibuster these hearings successfully, he would like to see a 'nuclear' decision be made by the Senate Leadership in favor of Gorsuch. A nuclear option was originally presented to Presidential Nominees in 2013 by (at that time) Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Senator Reid verified this option for nominees to more easily appoint former President Obama’s cabinet and lower court nominees; this decisively suppressed the opportunity for Republican Senators to filibuster the so mentioned nominees.

The nuclear option was not approved to be used in Supreme Court nominations, however, which would require a similar initiation, by now Senate Majority Leader McConnell, to extend the option to SCOTUS nominees. This possible expansion of the nuclear option is at this point, an overwhelming emphasis of discussion between Republican and Democrat-leaning media.

The waiting game is now upon us to see how the Senate will handle this Administration’s Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch. Staunch conservative principled individuals will seek to confirm him as soon as possible, while progressive principled individuals will seek to deny him as vigorously as possible.

Those who thought the politicization of the SCOTUS was over, they have been proven to be exceedingly wrong. A long partisan battle is ahead of us, so settle in and get comfortable.

Emotional Executive Order

Emotional Executive Order

By A.H. Sullivan

“Muslim Ban” … Most likely this statement has immediately drawn an emotional response from anyone reading. Left-leaning individuals will feel anger at President Trump and the Right; Right-leaning individuals will feel anger at the Media and the Left professing this as typical “Fake News”.

Before I get into an analysis of the actual Executive Order, I would like to clear the air on where I stand. I am a conservative at heart and have seen the immigration policies of the United States deteriorate into a serious security issue. Being a true conservative, I also despise Presidents using the “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone” mentality resulting in the use of executive orders (That statement was coined by former president Obama). With all of this being said, I do not believe the order violates any logical or constitutional foundations, but I also hope President Trump does not become accustomed to ruling with his pen’s stroke.

Now that my personal opinion is made evident, I would like to follow the actual verbiage of the order and build an analysis and understanding from that directly.

Initially, this Executive Order is NOT a “Muslim Ban”. The order carefully reads that this is temporary ban (90 days) on immigration from select (potentially dangerous) populations of individuals regarded in seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. These seven countries do not include Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or India which all have extremely high populations of Muslim people. Hence, if it is a “Muslim Ban”, it is not doing its job…. Here is an excerpt from the policy introduction to the Executive Order:

• (c) “I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).”
• (g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

What is easily spelled out: the temporary status that is this Executive Order, and that in special circumstances nationals of these countries listed can be provided with immigration status and visa acceptance. This means that an individual stuck in between countries can still be admitted into the country on a case by case basis.

The second most important part of this Executive Order is the Refugee Program Suspension. This is where personal opinions will play a major role. First here is the excerpt from the order:

• (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
• (c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

This section clearly places sanctions on Syrian Refugees in regards to incoming individuals to the United States. The Refugee Program will be under suspension for 120 days until a proper vetting program can be created to better safeguard Americans and American values/interests. This does not seem like an illogical order, as refugee terrorism has plagued Europe for the last 5 years.

• (d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

This section returns the United States to its historical average regarding acceptance of Refugees. It has only been since 2015 that we began ramping up Refugee acceptance into the country. 50,000 is more closely in line with the late 90’s through early 2000’s Refugee acceptance numbers. Before people begin shouting about the Syrian Civil War, let us recall that war began in 2011- meaning there were 4 years of normal refugee acceptance prior to the ramp up.

• (f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.

This excerpt is what some will define as a "Religious Test" for entrance. While it may seem this way on the surface, it is important to note that a Refugee by definition is an individual seeking asylum from war, persecution, or natural disaster. Persecution includes religious persecution, which is rampant in the Middle East against Christians and Shia Muslims alike. This means there will be an avenue of acceptance for those seeking asylum from religious persecution. Important note, this will not skirt any of the imposed vetting programs established to better the American safeguards to terrorism that will become implemented in the days to come.

Now with the actual Executive Order represented above, it is quite easy to see this is not a “Muslim Ban” by any means. Any news affiliates reporting this story as such can be currently classified as a “Fake News” story or at the very least a misleading headline.

Logical reservations of this order can still be expressed and considered valid. The Executive Order offers new examination and analysis after 30, 60, 90, and 120 days. This means the order can change and most likely will in some fashion. Until this particular initiative infringes on an anti-humanitarian or unconstitutional charge, we should all remember it is a privilege to enter the United States. Immigration is not a right constitutionally provided by our founding fathers and is not a privilege that should be earned lightly. American’s view in the world must continue to be a beacon of hope and freedom, but that does not mean America should become a vulnerable nation at its identity.

We may disagree in policies but never disagree on truth. “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.” – Mahatma Gandhi