Is The Fake News Real- Rockville and Landon Edition

Rockville

Is The Fake News Real? Rockville and London Edition

By Spencer Harris

Is The Fake News Real? Rockville and London News(Written in ironic pentameter)

Why is there seemingly more and more fake news stories being circulated to the public? One reason is the exponentially increasing number of sources. There are thousands upon thousands of websites, magazines, newspapers and news channels that produce information every minute of every day. Here at Taylored Thoughts, we take pride in writing real stories about fake news (Some of us under our pseudonyms) to enrich the minds of our readers. This is not to say that 100% of the population blindly follows what is fed to them by the media. Whatever that number is, let's say 30%, it is then multiplied by word of mouth or social media or through other various channels. It would be fair to estimate that any story could be accepted by 45% of the people out there waiting to consume it. The premise that controlling the content of the media means controlling the masses is common sense logic. Though there are exceptions and some room for argument, most news outlets in America are in step with the policies and ideology of the Democratic Party. This prioritizes and drives the stories they cover as well as the stories they ignore.

Two recent and tragic events within as many weeks clearly put this into perspective. Unfortunately, the lack of a source of information on one side necessitates some speculation. However, using historical media practices, it becomes easy to fill in the pattern. The most recent event was a terror attack in London. A radicalized, London-born Muslim named Khalid Masood (born Adrian Russell Elms) used an automobile to drive across Westminster Bridge ultimately arriving at the north side of Parliament. Along the way, he ran over and stabbed several people leaving five people dead including one officer and himself.

The other incident involved the brutal rape of a 14-year-old freshman girl in Rockville, Maryland by two illegal immigrants – one an 18-year-old Guatemalan, the other, a 17-year-old El Salvadorian (called “dreamers” because it sounds so noble I suppose). Both were, curiously enough, also freshmen at the same high school. This gruesome act happened in the school’s bathroom on March 16th at 9 A.M.

Both instances are horrific in nature. One happened on this side of the globe and was national in scope. The other occurred in a country that is a reflection of our own but has been ensnared in the globalization concept of an open Europe. I suppose if you had to weigh it without diminishing the importance of another, a terrorist attack would garner more attention. When I went searching for additional details of the story, I found exactly what I expected to find. The terror attack was downplayed to a lesser degree while the story was breaking. As I was following the London attack, one thing hit me: the London police said they were (and I am paraphrasing here) treating it as a terror incident until they had information proving otherwise. CNN's website referred to it as a “London Incident.” When researching the Rockville story, I unexpectedly found that national news reports for CBS, NBC, and ABC along with cable’s CNN and MSNBC gave a combined total of ZERO coverage time to the Rockville rape. A story this tragic and potentially impactful was ignored by some of the biggest names in the information industry. In one of their prouder moments, CNN did manage to squeeze in a hard-hitting report about how President Trump was "afraid of stairs" - a man who has built some of the tallest buildings in the world and who frequently deboards airforce one by walking down a mobile stairway.

If you have paid attention at all to the news cycle, you know this lack of coverage happens, and you also know why. The left in America continues to bend over backward to find new reasons why America and the intolerant western culture are to blame for the outrage of certain Islamic terrorists. There is a moral imperative on our part to put our safety aside while making sure any incident involving radical Islamic terror does not necessarily mean ALL Muslims are bad people. No shit. Any rational person will generally give people the benefit of the doubt before condemning them. It is the same rationale that tells me the left, in general, is fraudulent when they say things like “cops kill black people,” “we should all pay more taxes” or “Republicans hate immigrants.”

This brings me to why the network news affiliates were lacking in their coverage of the Rockville rape story. The Democrats use the media much the same way they use immigrants and the impoverished inner cities to spread their marketing. The media is the awkward debate student, and the Democrats are the starting quarterback. As such, the media will do anything their friends on the left need or want. It is difficult to say that the Democratic Party is directly controlling the media programming, but many network executives have political ties through marriage or direct relation.

Currently, illegal immigration is a political goldmine for the left. They portray the president and his policy of (brace yourself) upholding the law as somehow inhumane. I would argue that enforcing the law could have prevented the Rockville student’s rape, or Kate Steinle’s death and is, therefore, the most humane path to take. Apprehending criminal immigrants who are here illegally was one of the promises the President made during his campaign, and he is holding true to it. The left hates this policy and continues to drive a narrative of resistance. I have asked, researched, got ridiculously high in an effort to alter my thought processes and still have not figured out why. They will say, “We are a nation of immigrants”(not applicable to Elizabeth Warren). Again, I know this, but they make no designation between illegal and legal immigrants. There is also no line between immigrants – who are people – and immigration – which is a policy. I see no compassion for this plight of injustice once the cameras turn off and the lights go out. Every one of those legislators has a fence around their houses and locks on their doors. However, they continue to foster and encourage local and state governments to defy federal law thus creating anarchy. Uber-liberal politicians like New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio further cultivate fear by telling families that ICE agents will come to schools and churches to apprehend illegal immigrants. They use public resources to “educate” them on how to handle ICE agents as far as asking for a warrant, not talking without an attorney, etc. "We must not separate families," they say. Tell that to the Steinle's.

Fortunately, this tactic looks to be failing as evidenced by the amount of red that was on the electoral map in November. However, they continue to push false narratives and redirect information to fit their message. Unfortunately, without an email, office memo or phone call recording (shout out to Wikileaks and the CIA), there can be no direct evidence to show this, so it will have to remain a theory. It sounds a little wild until you see how many stories about the supposedly Russians rigging the elections that CNN runs daily. I am convinced it is on a loop. As a news organization that runs on integrity, why would you continue to run periodic reports on something with no proof for months? Compare that to zero coverage on a story that should make everyone sick with concern. While you are in a thinking mood, ask yourself who would benefit the most from pushing fake stories while giving not a single second to something like the rape of a child. What is more important to us as a nation? CNN should be out of business. The fake news is out there without a doubt, and it is not exclusive to pushing inaccuracies. The information determined by them to be unfit to broadcast can be just as telling as something inaccurate. Sifting through the garbage to try and find something of use is definitely a full-time job, but hopefully, your new-found logic proves it to be a vital one.

BREAKING NEWS: Maddow is a Moron

Maddow

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.

Iran Russia and Fake News

Iran Deal

IRAN, RUSSIA, and FAKE NEWS

By Thomas Wise

Barack Obama forcefully secured an Iran deal that gave the Shia nation a great chance to secure nuclear weapons. As well, he unlocked hundreds of billions in Iranian funds, giving Iran even more leverage. What was the upshot of this deal? First, Israel fiercely criticized this deal, primarily on existential grounds that it threatened the security of Israel. Second, accusations were made that Obama exceeded his authority in making such a deal. Remember? Was it a treaty or not? Why was the money delivered under cover of darkness? What safeguards were put in place to ensure Iran would abide by any deal at all? By every measure, the deal was a failure of common sense, protocol, and possibly lawfulness.

Does this mean Obama loves Iran? Well, he did call Iran a "small nation" that posed no real threat to the United States. He did pledge to make friends with our enemies, for whatever reason, whether for good, to mend fences, or for evil. He did not really push for the release of any American taken prisoner by Iran. By every measure, Obama seems to love Iran, and want that nation to succeed in whatever venture it takes on.

Is Obama a Shia Muslim? Iran is a Shia nation. By contrast, every other Muslim nation in the world is primarily Sunni. Shia and Sunni are relentlessly at each other's throats to snuff out the competing Islamic variation. Remember the Iran-Iraq War? Say what you will, that this was political, or a proxy war, but the Sunni-Shia rivalry is visceral and real. By assisting Iran in the way he did, Obama appears to have taken the Shia side. Since Islam is not only a religious but also a political movement, one could rightly say Obama acted as a good Shia Muslim.

Obama was partly raised in Indonesia, where he learned Islam. Presumably, he learned Sunni Islam, as Indonesia is primarily a Sunni nation. Did Obama turn on his Sunni upbringing to become a Shia Muslim, evidenced by his continued assistance of Iran? True, Obama has covered for the Saudis and even bowed in front of them. Yet, there is more Iranian than anything in his bloodstream, it seems. Valerie Jarrett, his chief of staff, is an Iranian.

What does this have to do with Russia?

Well, you see, Russia is ALSO on the side of the Shia. This does not mean Russia or Vladimir Putin is Shia. Rather, Russia is helping Iran to be a superpower in order to keep the spread of Sunni terrorism at bay. Russia does not tolerate Islamic terrorism or extremism in its borders, which is why we do not hear about it. Chechnya, which is Sunni by the populace, is a target for Russia in order to keep the Sunni terrorists at bay. Likewise, the Syrian civil war is a war against Sunni terrorism in order to keep the Russian gas and oil pipelines, which run through Turkey into Europe, safe. What they do not tell you on the nightly news is that Russia is interfering in Syria to save several pipelines. Bordering several Sunni nations, Russia has a real issue with Islamic terrorism. So it would appear to be prudent that Russia would team up with Iran, the Shia, to keep their mutual enemy, the Sunni, at bay.

Decidedly, the evidence points to a relationship between Obama, Russia, and Iran to fight the Sunni. Remember when Obama in 2012 leaned over to Medvedev and said, "Tell Vlad I will have more flexibility after the election"? The uproar on the Right was severe, yet the Democrats hardly blinked. Naturally, the Democrats protect their own.

The question is if Russia and Obama are on the same side, why is the Left attacking Trump for speaking with Russia? Could it be that by "speaking to Russia" the Left means Trump is undoing the Iran deal, and therefore putting Russia in danger? Does the Left love Russia and Putin? From the public displays and spectacles, one would think not. According to the placards and tweets, helping Russia in anyway is tantamount to helping Hitler, or being Hitler. The Left has turned into a vulgar caricature of Joe McCarthy (who, by the way, was right), attempting to purge from the government and public sphere anyone who seems to consort with Russia. Even SPEAKING with an ambassador of Russia (NOT a crime!) is considered worthy of public shaming and eventual impeachment.

The only conclusion which makes sense is that the Left does not want Donald Trump to retract the Iranian deal. At this late date, it is hard to see what might be retracted. The money is delivered, the nuclear material is being synthesized, and half the world, believing in Obama, has apparently gone Sunni. Nevertheless, the Left fears Trump very much, and it has not yet been revealed what they fear. Perhaps it is all Fake News outrage, and the Left is not concerned at all about Trump defeating Obama's Iranian deal, knowing it is completed. Perhaps the "outrage" is that he has the nerve to try, or to say he will try, and to beat Trump into submission, or at least silence. Perhaps the "outrage" is a false flag altogether, to cause the American people to think Trump is up-ending some delicate balance which will plummet everyone into World War 3.

Oddly, Russia does not appear to mind Trump interfering in the Iranian deal, though it is Russia which has much to lose in this respect. Perhaps Putin has calculated that the Iranian deal threatens Russia more than helps Russia, and is on Trump's side. Perhaps Putin wants some imbalance as a pretext to invading Chechnya, Georgia, or even Ukraine, meaning Trump is being used. Regardless, it is not as if Trump works in a vacuum. His generals, advisers, dignitaries, and other officials have all been around long enough to know the real story. We must have some faith that Trump is not working by himself, even if the Left insists he is a combination of Howard Hughes and Richard Nixon, a paranoid recluse with an enemies list and a plethora of compulsions.

The Iran deal is yet another piece of the puzzle in trying to discover what exactly is going on with the Left? Why is the Left foaming at the mouth about Russia when Russia is the birthplace of their beloved Leninism? Is modern-day Russia not communist enough for the Left? Alternatively, is Russia EXACTLY the way the Left likes it and is Trump interfering with Leftist world domination? If so, why do they say Trump is a Russian spy? Typically, the Left uses Alinsky methods to mock and alienate their enemy, in this case projecting that Trump is a communist when of course it is the Left who are communists. Will this ploy work? With Trump, it has not so far. He knows how to handle stress, the press, Fake News, and apparently politics also. Marginalizing Trump has only served to make him stronger and more popular, SO LONG AS he does not turn into a mealy-mouthed Republican and begin apologizing, explaining, and firing people who ought not be fired.

So what's next?  Difficult to say.  In 2015, Putin and Obama congratulated each other for their respective roles in making the Iranian deal happen, and the press loved it (LINK)!  Today, the press would have you think Russia is against the Iranian deal and against Obama. The facts say otherwise, but this will not stop the Left from denying history and making their own truth.  I can only say, beware the press and keep an eye on things for yourself!

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.

Todays Fake News Becomes Tomorrows Fake History

Fake History

Today's Fake News, Becomes Tomorrows Fake History

By Spencer Harris

Fake news is something that is on everyone's radar right now. The term is certainly en vogue. You hear it being applied to policy, opinions, and something that used to be immune to interpretation – fact. Depending on your perspective, you may consider fake news to be something completely different than the guy in the next cubicle. You can look at the current climate of reporting and call it partisan or lazy, but when you look at it from a historical angle, you begin to see something that could be significantly more impactful for future generations.

Here is the main problem: today’s fake news becomes tomorrow’s fake history. We used to call it revisionist history. However, that was more of a historical recount from a personal sense rather than a teachable one. By definition, history is fact and should be beyond revision. However, if you follow logic (if you do not have any, use mine– looking your way libs), it will tell you the same faculty and writers indoctrinating kids and distorting the current information flow will record current history. This means all the history books written going forward will reflect the views of today’s liberal contributors and “scholars.” These are the same people who are currently standing in front of a projection screen screaming “die” while shooting at the President on inauguration day. It is also the same educators who produce the youth of America who have no clue about the current state of the world. Couple that with what seems to be an increasingly less educated and more indoctrinated student body and you end up with a nation of fools. We have all seen them impress the hell out of their parents on TV or YouTube, etc. by stating that The United States won their independence from France. Take for example an October 2016 article The College Fix by Kate Hardiman from the University of Notre Dame. The article centers around an 11-year study conducted by an assistant professor of English at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh named Duke Pesta. His findings were as follows:

The professor concludes that “the next generation is on the verge of accepting today’s political opinions as historical fact.” Why wouldn’t they? These people are supposed to be educators and kids already think they know every damn thing known to man - just ask them. The problem is that today’s students, in general of course, absorb information instead of researching and obtaining that information for themselves. Without this research, our historical knowledge never changes since it is based on what was read from a single source.

Take for example something called the “Big Switch.” This is something many people are aware of but rarely articulate. The switch refers to how the Democrat and Republican parties “changed sides” on their views of race relations.  Let us take a look at some background information. I will start in 1864 with Lincoln and go forward. Lincoln was the first president of what was known as the “Radical Republican” party. This term came about because they not only wanted to free slaves but give them citizenship and the right to vote. We all know Lincoln’s background. We will start legislatively with the 13th Amendment. This Amendment made slavery illegal. It passed the Congress with 100% support on the Republican side and about 23% of the Democratic side – a detail you rarely hear. So as of April 1864, we have a Republican president in the white house that has just abolished slavery and is within a year of ending the worst conflict in American history.  On April 14th, 1865, the president was assassinated at the Ford Theater. His Vice-President Andrew Johnson, a pro-slavery Democrat, took over with a Republican house and senate. Johnson and the Southern Democrats mounted a campaign to push back on every piece of Republican civil rights legislation for about the next 90 years. July 1868 saw the passage of the 14th Amendment. This Amendment gave all persons born or naturalized in the United States citizenship. It passed with a staggering 94% Republican support and 0% Democratic. Next came the 15th Amendment in February 1870. This Amendment passed with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support. Regardless of what you think about who supports what today, it is at least worth recognizing how one sided the support was for this legislation that was beneficial for the nation as a whole. When you put it in context, it was monumental for the time. There were severe backlash and fierce opposition by the Democrats for this legislation. It is no coincidence the KKK was founded in 1866 and by 1870, it extended across the south. The Klan operated as the enforcing arm of the Southern Democrat party with the goal of terrorizing former slaves into not voting. This way the southern state’s legislatures could remain and pass laws designed to keep them in power.

Fast forward to the 1950’s. This is when the next real block of Civil Rights legislation begins. It started with President Eisenhower (yep, another Republican) integrating the U.S. Military and pushing the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through congress. Now, here is where things get crazy. One of his chief political opponents of the civil rights legislation prior to 1957 was then Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Johnson. Yes, the same Lyndon Johnson who signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Up until the 1957 act, Johnson had voted the straight southern Democrat segregationist’s line.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed a hundred years after the abolition of slavery, and the Republicans were still in the majority of the support. In the House, 80% of Republicans supported it, in the Senate, 82%. At this point, you still had the southern racists Democrats like George Wallace, Bull Conner & Robert Byrd (the former Klansman that Hillary Clinton - another Southern Democrat - called a “friend and mentor”) as influential figures in Southern politics. After the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Democrats went from blatant bigotry to a more subversive strategy. There is an alarming number of people today who truly believe that Republicans are the party of racism because they have always been told that. This claim is simply an unsubstantiated myth. If the Republican Party was truly any more racist than the Democratic Party, how would the percentages of party votes on every major Civil Rights legislation over 100 years be explained? The fact is they do not have to because unless you have researched this, you will not find those numbers. You do not hear about them in the media or the PBS documentaries on TV. It is a classic example of something that becomes real because you hear it over and over and there is no one there to refute it.

This example is clearly an instance where history and fact are not in alignment. Though the actual truth has not been altered, the narrative has. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Recently, the president of the University of Virginia, founded by Thomas Jefferson, came under fire for quoting Jefferson in an email. Of course, the students and faculty were “deeply offended.” The professor of politics signed a letter stating that the very mention of Jefferson could “undo progress” of the administrators. He was only one of the chief writers of the Declaration of Independence - one of the greatest documents in history. Did I mention that he wrote it in 17 days? He also set forth the proclamation that all men are created equal. This single statement was the bedrock of all those civil rights legislations. He attended the Second Continental Congress, The Boston Tea Party, he was the Governor of Virginia, a Secretary of State & the 3rd President of the United States. He even died on July 4th. If it had to do with America, Thomas Jefferson was there. However, the man owned slaves. No one condones that, but erasing his significance in history or acting like evoking his name is somehow immoral is beyond comprehension.

This kind of re-writing of history has continued throughout my lifetime. You cannot change things by omitting them from the record. Since I live in the south, I see this every year. A civil war hero’s name or statue gets removed from a school, or a park for something deemed more palatable or for just air. I think sometimes people forget that, as far as a country goes, we are young. Yet, We have achieved more in that short 241 years (hope my math is correct) than anyone could have imagined. However, not all of it was immune to the morality of time and hindsight. I am no historian, but I can name many atrocities in the historical context of national growth and development. Many happened before my father’s grandfather was born. Many are happening today, but opinions born of shame are not going to change the facts. The facts are there for use to learn from and hopefully change. If those facts are whitewashed in an effort to make us look more compassionate or evolved, we repeat the mistakes that caused all of this chaos in the first place. When opinions are presented in lieu of facts, it is not known to someone hearing this for the first time, and they repeat that as fact and our society as a whole becomes a little less educated.

To Pee or Not to Pee

Gender

To Pee or Not to Pee?

By Spencer Harrie

I started writing for this blog because I was energized by the recent election like so many of you. I was frustrated with trying to express points and have decent, intelligent conversations within the constructs of 140 characters. How can you? You get snippy thoughts that are often incomplete. Your passion fades while your discussion devolves into an argument and then into a pissing match worthy of a middle school hallway. It goes from a multi-pointed conversation, to defending a single point, to insults and dismissing the person altogether. The goal here for me is to open that up again, so I am not forced to resign to the fact that people, in general, are morons. A very wise man once said. “Imagine how dumb the average person is…..half the people are dumber than that.” I used to think that was just a clever quip, but then came social media. There is an ocean of topics for people to latch on to and yell snappy chants with pre-made protester signs. If you are a bastard instigator like me (a title I earned and wear proudly), you can set people off so easily.
From what I have seen so far, the current president has no interest in any agenda outside of making America great again. Now that means different things to different people, but to me, it means a more robust economy, the end of lawlessness, and most importantly the rejuvenation of a stout middle class. I am irritated by the wealthy. I also abhor poverty and the anchor it is to the poor, but those are separate concerns. The middle class drives the economy. They have the most numbers. They consume the most goods. They donate the most money which in turn helps the less fortunate. This teaches character and empathy - both admirable traits. A robust middle class is the backbone of a strong country. When their morale is high, the country's morale follows. President Trump's philosophy is to shrink government and unleash the power of America. Anyone who believes in themselves and has a pioneering spirit should be doing cartwheels over this concept.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Although I sound pretty smart here, it happens to be the 10th Amendment. Outside of the 2nd, it is my favorite amendment and is clearly defined in its scope and purpose. In short, if the Constitution does not give the government the explicit power to preside, that power falls upon the state. Its purpose is to limit the power of a central government over the individual states – kind of a no taxation without representation concept.
The latest hot button issue is President Trump's reversal on President Obama's bathroom directive. The prior paragraph ends this discussion from a practical perspective. I have read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights a few times. There is nothing I can remember in there about who pees where. Yet, everyone is walking around baffled. The law essentially said that the government would block federal funds to schools if they did not provide additional facilities for kids who identify as transgender. "YAY!" shouted the left. "If they do not follow the law, take their money!" Somehow the same logic does not apply to the left in regards to sanctuary cities. I do not know - priorities. “Let’s protect trans kids!” they shouted. I am not sure what the grave danger is. I do not recall anyone getting murdered over this. Perhaps I am just an insensitive dope as Zac Petkanas thinks. Who knows? It is actually an odd position for me. As a decent person raised by exceptional parents (yes, my mom reads this), I do have empathy for them. However, I am not 100% sure that the fight is fully theirs and not their parents. There is a faction who cares about their own agenda and will use anything and anyone to try and get that agenda pushed through.
In true left fashion, they have put this in the broad category of “Civil Rights.” So how is this a Civil Right? The right to equality in public places? The bathroom is a pretty private place. Full disclosure here: I have a few gay friends and have been to several birthday parties and weddings, etc. If you have not been, go. There was no pretentious douchery rampant in the air. It is not like you were hit on every time you turned around. They had more drinks than just appletinis and cosmopolitans. The one thing they did not have- Separate bathrooms for straights or post-ops or drag queens or whatever; If you had to pee you pee. It did not matter where. The best part was no one cared, and there were plenty of straight people there just having a good time. I know it is different when you consider the public as a whole. After all, there were no children at that bar.
President Trump rescinded the executive order President Obama put into place. That is all. The decision now falls to the individual state legislatures which are where it should be in the first place. If California or New York wants 25 separate bathrooms, they can pass a law and it is done. If Texas wants to keep the status quo, then so be it. Transgender people have been around as long the United States. I am pretty sure somewhere a bathroom has been used, and life went on. According to the Williams Institute, transgender people make up 0.58% of the total population. California has the most (218,000) while Hawaii has the most per capita (0.78%). If these states pass transgender bathroom laws and North Dakota does not (1,650 total), well that is ok, and again life will go on. The fact is the Constitution has nothing regarding this subject unless of course, you count the 10th Amendment. The solution is there. So solve the “issue” and quit bitching already.
Unfortunately, this is just another topic for us to disagree. I get the weight of the plight and the importance it holds to what statistically is a few people. If the discussion needs to be had – I mean really needs to be had then, by all means, let's have it. I would hope that clear-minded, rational adults could come to a respectful decision that not only helps those who need it but is also not punitive to those it does not affect. By the way, did you know the North Koreans are using VX nerve gas and that 474 people were arrested in a multi-day sting operation focused on human trafficking in California? Perhaps there are bigger issues to combat.

Jihadi John- A Warning

Jhiadi John

Jhiadi John- A Warning

By Thomas Wise

Remember Jihadi John? Of course, you don't! Nobody talks about it anymore. Jihadi John was a piece of trash British Arab, Mohammed Emwazi, who publicly executed people on social media. In the name of Allah, of course. Wikipedia (Read here) has a section for Jihadi John. Anyone can see it.

Remember James Foley's grisly public death - that was Jihadi John.

This scum is dead now: (Read more here) He is a martyr and a hero to ISIS and many young aspiring jihadis.

Take another look at the Wikipedia page. Look at the various images and videos on Google of this Jihadi John.

Look and learn.

Who does this remind you of?

This Jihadi John look is all the rage now in the streets of America.So-called radicals and protestors wear the black outfits, the ski mask, andthe backpack look of the double-strap that Jihadi John wore.

Let me put this to you bluntly:

The radicals running through the streets in black masks and carrying batons are in ISIS or are ISIS wannabes.These are not "anarchists" or "liberals."This is a full-scale test-run of Islamic radicalism in the streets, taking advantage of moments when emotions run high.

Donald Trump is President? "Let's set fires, break windows, beat on people." Travel limitation on 7 Middle East countries?  Ditto.

Where are the police in all this?

Rarely do we see batons beating down these criminals.

Is there a Muslim cabal in federal, state and local governments?

"Oh, there goes McCarthy."

I have news for you: Communists exist, exist plenty, and are always awake, planning the overthrow of the West.

So is ISIS.

Is this deniable?

Am I being factual?

I challenge you to tell me communism's goal is not to take over the world.

I challenge you to tell me ISIS's goal is not to take over the world.

So when I tell you that some of the radicals in the streets are not communists but ISIS members and wannabes, you should take a hard look.

Want to prove it? Tackle them, take off their masks, render them inoperative, take their fingerprints, run the background.

When the results are in, we shall see.

If the results show all college-age emotional white guys with psychological problems, I will backpedal.

If the results, however, show I am correct, and the colleges are infiltrated by ISIS, you must accept the facts.

More importantly, what are you going to do about it?

Shrug, or purge?

If you do not understand it's them or us, and we have every right to know who's setting fires in the streets, we're doomed.

By the way, if you think it's OK for ANYONE to set fires in the streets, we're doomed.

Where is your sense of law-and-order?

Where is your sense of public safety?

What about the CHILDREN?!

There is not a conservative among us who does not agree with me, yet they are sissified with civility.

Now that Trump is President, and has shown he is not going to take any guff, where are WE?

Where is our local government?

Why aren't you in the town halls asking questions and demanding answers?

God knows the Leftists and radicals are!

Banging drums in the State House, blocking off Muslim circles in Texas in the PUBLIC SQUARE!

Who are we?

Are we victims, or are we conquerors?

Make up your mind!

There is no place in this world for benign libertarianism anymore.

You can't say, "It's not my problem" anymore when Jihadi John is right outside your door, in your street, on your local news.

You can't say, "Not my President" anymore unless you are with the terrorists.

I don't care if I sound like George W. Bush, I want my children to inherit American, not Americastan.

Follow me on Twitter

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

Make Liberalism Liberal Again

Liberal

Make Liberalism Liberal Again

By Happily Ever Autumn

Nowadays, it seems as if words have a lot of power. They probably have more power than they should. One word that I find very powerful is: 'Liberal.'

I've been asking myself lately: "Should I keep calling 'Liberals'... Liberals?"

This is what "liberal" actually means:

• a person of liberal views
• open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values
• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms
• willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas

• (in a political context) favoring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reforms
• relating to Liberals or a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat Party

• marked by generosity
• not literal or strict
• broad-minded; especially: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
• of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
• capitalized: of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism

- Synonyms: tolerant, unprejudiced, enlightened, generous, permissive, lenient, progressive, advanced, radical
- Antonyms: narrow-minded, bigoted, reactionary, conservative

(You can find these definitions, and more, via the links below.)

I do not make it a point to police people's speech, but I find it confusing, and kind of upsetting, how...liberally most of us use this word. Most of us do not use "Liberal" to simply mean that someone is a part of a Liberal political party (like the Democratic Party for example, which is, sadly, associated with "Liberalism"). No; we use it to describe people who are the very opposite of "liberal".

If someone approached you and said, "Trump supporters deserve to be assaulted; voting for Trump makes you a racist woman-hater and you are a threat to society", what would you say? Probably something like, "Ugh! More liberal nonsense! Typical Liberal! Liberal logic at its finest!"

I see it all the time. One of us gets into an argument with someone who is prejudice, hateful and disrespectful from the start, and the first thing we call that person is "liberal". The first word we use to describe their regressive views is "liberal".

It seems the only "liberal" thing about most of the so-called "Liberals" in this country is the fact that they are willing to discard traditional values and practices. But even this isn't done for the sake of progression or success; instead, they simply mock those who choose to embrace the traditions they find unfavorable. Their opposition to anything and everything that's "normal" is completely compulsive. Most of us agree (and even point out) that Liberals these days are anything but liberal. Yet we continue to automatically associate that word with them and their beliefs. I find this odd.

Refer to these people however you would like, but personally, I am done using a word that is supposed to mean "tolerant" and "accepting" to describe people and opinions that are intolerant and full of prejudice. I am done using a word that is supposed to mean "broad-minded" to describe dogmatic people who refuse to admit when they're wrong or even open their minds to the possibility of being wrong. I am done using a word that is supposed to mean "progressive" to describe people who think feelings equate to facts. I'm going to stick with terms like Leftist, Regressive, etc.

Personally, all my favorite people (including many of you Conservatives) are liberal, to an extent. I've never met anyone who respects literally all viewpoints and avoids all traditions; I think doing so would actually be detrimental to the pursuit of liberty and progression. Some people are more liberal than others. I think that most Conservatives are fairly liberal people and that being a fairly liberal person is the norm. I use to call myself a Liberal, and I still would if the word weren't abused the way it is now.

Again, I am not policing anyone's speech. Call people whatever you want. I also understand that words evolve over time and not everything should be taken literally.

However, on behalf of true Liberals like myself – who are afraid to associate with that word because Conservatives will automatically (and understandably) assume we are psychotic anti-Americans – I really wish this word wouldn't be used so negatively. I think we should call people liberal because they are liberal, not because they aren't.

I also hate to see other true Liberals abandon their title and sometimes even their own truly liberal viewpoints because they're embarrassed to be associated with what has, unfortunately, become such a nasty word.

I believe Liberals and Conservatives are meant to be allies, not opponents, as I believe we share the same core values, same love for all humanity, same American spirit. We need each other to stay grounded, and at the same time, challenged. To keep our feet planted firmly on the ground while also continuously soaring to new heights, we need the assets and ideas of all patriotic Americans if we're going to be everything we can be as a nation. If we're all Conservative, we'll get nothing done. If we're all Liberal, we'll get nothing done. To achieve our fullest potential as a country, we must embrace all pro-American ideologies; even the ones we don't fully understand or agree with.

Look up the word and be your own judge of how you should use it. However,  you definitely will not see me use it as often. I will refer to us as Americans, united with one goal in mind- to bring America back to its core values. We are"We the People" in search of the American dream- The Pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.

Google Search "define liberal"

"Liberal" according to Oxford Dictionary

"Liberal" according to Merriam Webster Dictionary

Future of the Democratic Party

Democrats

FUTURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

By Tony Joseph

After watching the Woman’s March across the nation yesterday, I am now fully convinced that the hijacking of the feminist movement and Democratic Party is now complete. The march probably set real feminism back 50 years.

Some of the displays were just a bunch of vile and angry cat ladies who supposedly were marching for women’s rights. It seems as if the ones who were there for legitimate reasons were drowned out by the crazies. Yet, there leading the pack was Linda Sarsour- a Muslim woman who openly supports Sharia Law.

From my experience of watching the younger liberal generation, most of them seem to follow without thinking any of it through. So, to any of those who marched yesterday and followed it mindlessly- you marched for Sharia Law, where women have no rights. Supporting sharia law is against everything your predecessors fought for years to attain.

The blind following of 'movements' directly correlates to the spiral of destruction the Democratic Party as a whole seems to be going down. Their first step towards destruction was Obama. Eight years later,  Hillary Clinton furthered the race to destruction. The nomination of Clinton will turn out to be worse for their party over time. Why so? Simply because Clinton bullied her way into becoming the Democratic nominee for President. It appears to have been completely orchestrated when Tim Kaine stepped down as DNC chair in 2011 and was replaced by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Debbie Wasserman Shultz was a Co-Chair on Clinton's unsuccessful run for President in 2008. This allowed total control of the party by Clinton and Wikileaks revealed how that worked out through the DNC email leak. Eventually, Kaine got his reward for stepping down and allowing Shultz to become DNC Chair, by being the VP running mate of the 2016 Clinton campaign. Shultz had to step down because of the Wikileaks DNC email leaks.

The cast of clowns that seems to have been assembled to replace Schultz is a clear view of the radical path of the Democratic Party seems to be going down. However, one stands out and is by far the most dangerous. Keith Ellison seems to be the favorite out the gate and has been fully endorsed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, and of course Harry Reid.

Given his history with Anti-Semitic comments, support of Sharia Law, his controversial 9/11 statements, and his financial support from CAIR- one would think it would be enough to disqualify him from becoming DNC chair. Nope, it will only solidify that the Democratic Party is in danger of becoming The Anarchist Party if they continue down this path. They’ve chosen not only the direction of their party but also their vision for the direction of the nation.

The Democratic leaders do not seem to want a nation of law and order. They want socialism. They want total control of the masses. Ask any college professor and they will tell you how they know so much more than you. They will claim to know what the people need, better than the people themselves! This is the potential future of the Democratic Party. George Orwell, in his book '1984', could not have been more prophetic.