The Trump Strategy in Syria, An Analysis on Day 1

Syria

The Trump Strategy in Syria - An Analysis on Day 1

By Thomas Wise

A few moments ago, President Donald Trump struck Syria with between 50 and 60 Tomahawk missiles. I do not have much more facts than this at present, but I do not need them to tell you what's happening.

Within the last few days, Syrian citizens were gassed with chemical weapons, and children died. The Right was aghast. The Left was aghast and blamed Trump for a tepid response. Obviously, the blame game was on.

During 2013, then-President Barak Obama set a "line in the sand" with President Bashar Assad of Syria. At that time, chemical weapons were ALSO used against Syrian citizens. It is still not clear who used these weapons, neither in 2013 nor 2017. Yet it seems beyond dispute that Syrian citizens were and are being gassed with chemical weapons stored in Syria.

Here is a fact: between 2013 and 2016, Barack Obama dropped many thousands of bombs on Syria. There was no clear reason given why, and no strategy specifically stated for the raining down of bombs. Many made their own conclusion that it was in retaliation for the gassing of Syrian citizens. Without a concrete battle plan to study, the people of the USA and the world were guessing.  As usual, Obama made moves, and the world scurried to put a positive spin on it.

Meanwhile, a Syrian refugee crisis grew from continued US and other intervention in the Syrian Civil War. All this did was send many tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of Syrian citizens out of Syria. They went to many nations, in Europe and the Americas. If one wished to take a NEGATIVE spin from the Obama "Strategy," it could be he WANTED these refugees.

There is NO doubt that Obama, Merkel and other Western leaders had such a plan ready. For when these refugees hit the borders of Eastern Europe, the border guards were told to stand down. How strange! National borders were opened wide for scurrying refugees from war-torn nations that habitually harbor terrorists! Obama, Merkel, and the rest were embracing, even pleading for, these anonymous and often dangerous refugees. Not only from Syria, but also from OTHER nations Obama was bombing, such as Libya and Somalia.

Now, in 2017, President Donald Trump has swiftly attacked Syria in clear retaliation for gassing citizens. Whether you agree with the move or not, at least we know WHY Trump is doing it. Whether you want US intervention in the Middle East or not, you know the reason and goal. At least I think I know, and I believe you know.

President Trump is also not a fan of letting refugees enter the United States. Therefore, one might say that bombing Syria in this manner, clearly and swiftly, is a way to make Syria safe again. Yes, I understand, not while the bombs are dropping. However, if Trump can get Assad's attention, the Syrian Civil War might cool off enough so refugees can go home. At the very least, refugees would no longer have any back-story to tug at our heartstrings. Why would they need to come to America if their country is safe again?

Naturally, this takes time. The Syrian Civil War was not built in a day, and the Obama-Merkel refugee strategy has been in place for too long. Too many doors (and windows) are still open for all kinds of people to emigrate to the USA. President Trump has often spoken about making "safe zones" in the Middle East so refugees can stay close to home.
Whenever you want to make a safe space, you have to clear the area.
The gassing of Syrian citizens was simply a major event that paved the way for a Trump strategy.

What is this Trump strategy?

It could be that ISIS used the chemical weapons and blamed it on Assad. It could be that the CIA used the chemical weapons and blamed it on Assad. In either case, the point was to put pressure on President Trump's administration, to test their mettle. Perhaps one might say "it is a trap, government" but it is a chance that must be taken. President Trump really has no choice, since he criticized Obama for doing nothing, even if Obama did random violent things to Syria.

Above all, the Obama strategy must be dismantled. Not only the strategy to inject foreign viruses into the West (yes, Obama is a traitor, in my opinion), Trump must also dismantle the Deep State that plans, permits, and foists treasonous moves against America. I hate to say it, but we are fighting the viruses deep within our own government. Bombing Syria is a step towards ferreting out these elements, as well as standing ground.

President Trump has a duty to live up to his tough words, but also to smartly take down the Deep State. Whoever dropped the chemical weapons must be stopped.

What if it was Assad who used the chemical weapons against his own people? Then Trump wins three ways:
(1) he does what Obama did NOT do - clearly, swiftly, and boldly strike Assad,
(2) he ends the refugee immigration into the West, and
(3) he intercedes in the plans of the Deep State to keep the war going.

There is another possibility: that Assad is working with Trump to ferret out ISIS and/or the CIA Deep State. I am not sure I believe Assad is a good guy, but if I am right, it would be an interesting ploy. This is truer if Assad was formerly on the side of Obama and/or the CIA (not ISIS, however).

How does Russia fit into this? It is clear Russia has economic interests in Syrian stability. Yet Trump taking out the chemical weapon elements in Syria is NOT a direct link to helping Russia. If it DOES help Russia, it is only a by-product of the Trump strategy already delineated.

Of course, Obama's crew is not stupid. They KNOW this possibility exists that Trump could win both the outward and inward wars, and the evil forces are already deploying anti-Trump factions, saying he is helping Russia.

So, there you have it: day 1 of President Trump striking Syria. If you think this is a new war, please remember that Obama bombed Syria many thousands of times in 2016 alone. This is already authorized action, even expected and hoped-for action. In sum, this is a good, if necessary move, by the Trump administration.

God bless this nation and the world.

TRUMPCARE – Fake News

Trumpcare

TRUMPCARE - Fake News!

By Thomas Wise

In recent weeks the press has decided to dub the House Republican "healthcare" bill, which purportedly repeals Obamacare, "Trumpcare." Nothing could be further from reality.  President Donald Trump did not WRITE the House bill, and (as of this writing) he has not SIGNED any such bill into law.  The House bill is entirely the brainchild (or godson, if you will) of Paul Ryan, and should rightly be called "Ryancare" or, in its Latin name, Piecus Crappus.

The fact that President Trump has rallied for this bill, or appeared to rally for it, is moot. If the bill never passes, it cannot get signed, and therefore can't be called Trumpcare. To compare, "Romneycare" was both a concept from, and signed by, Mitt Romney. "Hillarycare" was a project written by, or at least with significant input from, Hillary Clinton, even if it was never signed into law. Moreover, good old Obamacare, while not from the "mind" of Obama per se, WAS in fact signed by Obama.

So why does the dishonest and self-aggrandizing press print such obvious fake news as calling the Ryan bill "Trumpcare" when that is so easily rebutted?  Basically, the press knows humans are lazy, prone to believe repeated memes (even if false), and are largely without access to truer facts than the media supplies. Simply, they call it Trumpcare because you BELIEVE it. If you did not buy it, they would change the name quickly to suit the absorption rate.

Why is this important? In the grand scheme of things, it is not. However, in the context of the dissolution of our society, it is another "brick in the wall." Our inability or reluctance to ferret out the truth, and to demand it, will be the death of us. Whether the press is trying to convince us that ISIS is not Islamic, or that Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong (or pick your favorite peeve), it is evidence that journos think they rule us. This would not be so important except that our leaders appear much of the time to be weak-willed puppets. Thus, it is left to the press to lead.

Is this true? Are we so desirous of leadership that we will choose between inept politicians and sneaky journalists? I'm sorry to say, yes.

Think about it - Congress has a terrible approval rating, yet they continue to be reelected. According to Gallup (journos, nevertheless), public approval of Congress stood at 19% in January 2017 and 24% in March 2017.

 

This means between 3-in-4 and 4-in-5 people thinks Congress is terrible. Even so, 95% of Congressmen are reelected year after year. Since the year 2000, Representatives have been reelected on average about 94% of the time (in 2010, the reelection rate was 85%). For Senators, the reelection rate has been on average (over the same time period) about 85%.

You can squawk all day about them dirty rotten politicians, but the fact is (unless term limits are ever ratified to the Constitution) you will probably be putting up with that same idiot next term.

President Donald Trump (and many others) have asserted that the media has an even lower approval rating than Congress. Is this true? Politifact did a study on this assertion and found it to be "mostly false" (SOURCE). 

What a surprise, the media defending itself while at the same time hitting President Trump, while at the same time trying to appear unbiased and humble! What a joke.

The press has a habit of misidentifying, or perhaps it would be better to say RE-identifying, such political footballs.  Why? Simply, the press is not on your side. When I say "your side," I mean both the Left and the Right. The press is for ITSELF, and no other. They only cheer on "freedom of the press" if it means they get to produce the news and you get to consume it. It is for them to label and inform (or misinform) and for you to believe. This is what the press as a whole believes, and how they act.  Period.

Is this a new phenomenon? No, not really. The press has basically always believed itself to be the ultimate power on Earth, making kings and shaping kingdoms. In the Bible, the serpent falsely reported to Eve that God was lying, that the fruit would not cause her to die. Why? To undermine the true power. Unfortunately for Adam and Eve, fake news cost them (and us) dearly.

Even those journos (media types) who fashion themselves as real watchdogs are apt to view themselves as the true power, overcoming the "evil press" with "true facts." I am not saying there aren't good eggs out there (I can name a dozen off the bat), only that, in the end, we rely on THEM for truth without actually witnessing the events they describe. Even those media types who purport to watchdog the media have this ego trip, thinking they alone shape public opinion. Perhaps I exaggerate by reporting on such reporting, but in essence, this is factual.

This article is hardly exhaustive, but you get the point: the media is dishonest, and we know it, but we do nothing about it. Just as we keep reelecting people we supposedly can't stand, we keep watching the news we supposedly think is fake.  As long as we watch fake news, they will produce fake news. For this reason, the media feels no obligation to refrain from calling Ryancare "Trumpcare."

Doing so serves an immediate purpose, which is to undermine President Trump, who is at odds with the media’s world-shaping mindset. It also serves another immediate purpose, to saddle President Trump with a healthcare bill that is no less than "Obamacare light" (to use a media meme). It also serves an agenda, to retain Obamacare in the public sphere, which serves to retain Obamacare itself. Why? It makes no difference if Obamacare is a failure, the media must never admit that failure. That admission would negate eight years of sycophantic fawning and shed a little light on media lying and hypocrisy. This makes no never mind for the older consumer but, the younger consumer, already seeking news from alternate sources, would be more motivated to steer clear of fake news. THIS is the TRUE goal of media: to continue shaping their world in their image without losing young viewership to truer forms of media. Thus, the attacks by fake news on Breitbart, Infowars, Fox, and outlets that at least TRY to give a less putrefied version of the news.

Fake News! - The media controls the media. They do not. YOU control the media when you hold them accountable. Exercise your right to know as many factual things as possible so you can stitch together a truthful narrative for yourself, and not lazily depend on media bias and self-interest.

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.

Russia, Syria and Turkey A Fake News Perspective

Turkey NATO

Russia, Syria and Turkey: A Fake News Perspective

By Thomas Wise

A recent Bloomberg Article about Turkey said:

"A go-ahead by the Trump administration would bring an immediate gain for Erdogan by signaling that the U.S. no longer sees Kurds as an essential
element in the fight against Islamic State, a view that has infuriated its
NATO ally. Turkey, embroiled in a three-decade conflict with Kurdish
separatists regards Kurdish attempts to establish autonomy in northern
Syria as a direct national security threat.

Erdogan said on Tuesday in Istanbul that troops are on the verge of
capturing the town of Al-Bab, an Islamic State stronghold. He’s also asked
the U.S. to persuade Kurdish groups to withdraw from the border town of
Manbij.

“Manbij belongs to Arabs,” he said. "

In this article, Bloomberg barely makes it clear that Turkey is a NATO member (List of NATO countries here), making it seem instead that Turkey is attacking NATO.

These excerpts and this article, in general, are a culmination of propaganda by the left-wing press. Huffington Post, for example, has been attacking Turkey for some time:

HuffPo NATO

 

HuffPo Turkey

Why is this propaganda, this Fake News, happening?

Clearly, the Left is against Russia. Why? Russian pipelines run through Turkey, providing oil and gas to Europe. The Syrian civil war is a threat to that pipeline, so Russia is also acting in its own interests. But let's be clear: the Left is not interested in competing with Russia in capitalist terms. This is not "Russia is stealing our business." In fact, the Left has barely acknowledged the Russo-European pipelines, instead focusing on Vladimir Putin as an infiltrator of elections.

Turkey's leader, Erdogan, is a similar target by those same Leftists. Again, the Left is attacking a leader who is attempting to stabilize the region. Whether it's Putin or Erdogan, the Left is insanely decrying any attempt at peace in Syria except on its own terms. Remember when the Left made wild claims regarding Assad using chemical weapons on his own people. Did this actually happen? Or was it Fake News? What was the purpose?

All the Left has succeeded in doing is making the situation in Syria worse, by telling Syrians they need to flee their own country.  This obviously has led to the "refugee" crises we see in Europe and around the world.

Why, if one didn't know better, one might think the Left WANTS a Syrian civil war in order to foster and facilitate the "refugee" crisis! Oh, but there is NO evidence of that. No leader in Germany or France or Canada has ever taken in or desired to take in an inordinate number of Syrians. No one named Obama has ever flooded any part of the USA with Syrian, Somali, or Iraqi refugees. Obama never bombed those countries 26,000 times in 2016 alone. Oh wait- yes he did, yes he did, and yes they did.

Leftist leaders in Europe and the Americas attack Putin and Erdogan for attempting to stabilize the region for their own interests. These same Leftist leaders then brazenly take in massive numbers of Muslims into their countries, claiming a moral duty. Moral duty? To whom? According to the Left, it's Putin and Erdogan who have the moral duty. So why is the Left so willing to take on the burden of what they say belongs to Putin and Erdogan?

One might say, "To be better than them!" How are you "better" when your countries suffer under the weight of these Muslims? In fact, this weight makes Putin and Erdogan RIGHT, not wrong. How? If the Left hadn't interfered, this would've been settled already, one way or the other.  Now, the West is reeling from "refugee" crime and tumult.

This is not to say Putin or Erdogan are good people or have noble intentions. It's all business, stability, and good for the Russians and Turks. Let me be clear: I get nothing out of applauding anything Putin or Erdogan do. However, the Left is destroying the West by taking in Muslim "refugees" under the guise of fighting against Putin and Erdogan.

Why do I keep putting "refugees" in quotes?  Well, the "refugees" are mainly men of military age. Why are these cowards fleeing their homes and families? They are entreated and encouraged to do so, by the Left. Why is the Left encouraging this?  The Left wants to destroy the West intentionally. Why? Guilt complexes, self-hatred, and coveting the success of others: these would seem to be self-evident psychoses of those on the Left who are bent on this destruction.

The same psychotic Left that writes Fake News articles regarding the intentions of Turkey and Russia also writes Fake News about America, Donald Trump, Europe, Brexit, and so on. Why so much Fake News? The answer is simple- To further their agenda, fueled by a seething hatred of America and Americana. They desire to destroy not only the West but also every vestige of Western civilization. They, in my opinion, are the Western version of ISIS.

The Syrian civil war could literally be over if the Left would stop interfering. Right-wingers are called "neocons, " but liberal nation-building is more insidious and subtle. Rather than build, they destroy and keep destroying. Sound familiar? They do the same thing with the African-American community in America. Keep them down, keep them angry, and blame the Republican white man. The same is happening in Syria: keep blaming NATO ally Turkey, and the Russian bear, while at the same time pretending to stand up for Turkey against Donald Trump, who is actually FOR the peace.

Why is the Left against Russia?  In a sentence, Russia is no longer communist enough for the Left. Remember when Barack Obama leaned over to Medvedev and said, "Tell Vlad after the election I'll have more flexibility."

 

 

Why is THAT not criticized? Not only, as you might think, to protect Obama, but to safeguard the agenda of the Left. "But if the Left is against Russia, why did Obama say that?" Have you ever thought that Obama said what he said into the hot mic because he KNEW it was hot?  A master of deception, Obama waves his hand one way while he does other things with his tentacles. Sure, we are aware Obama is a snake, but this image doesn't matter to him if he can make it appear that Russia manipulates the American Presidency. Get it?

Why is Turkey important? It is Asia Minor, the link between Europe and Asia. It is the seat of the old Ottoman Empire and the old Holy Roman Empire. It is a neighbor to Syria. It is a conduit for Russia. It is part of NATO. If you do not take Turkey seriously, you do not take anything seriously.  The Left wants you to think Turkey is a devilish ally of Russia, while at the same time demanding that President Trump accepts NATO, which includes Turkey, without question. Then, when he accepts NATO, they will demand he sanction Turkey!

So remember, when you read anything about Russia, Turkey, or Syria in the left wing press, it's almost always lies. There is NO possible way the Left can be FOR peace and FOR unlimited refugees AT THE SAME TIME. Peace brings the refugees home, which appears to be something the Left resists because these refugees are part of the Left's destruction of the West.

 

Why Do We Need A Day Without a Woman

A day without a woman

Why Do We Need A Day Without a Woman? A Guys Persepctive

By Spencer Harris

As a guy with enough humble opinions to last six lifetimes, I was not incredibly surprised by the announcement of the whole 'A Day Without a Woman' thing. Sure, it seems impressive to get that many people that don’t work or who are in college to take a “personal day” to let America know that being a woman is an accomplishment to behold. It made me think; is it really? I know I am going to get ripped for this because I am a guy and can’t possibly know why this is an important day for a woman. Just speaking biologically, I have a 50/50 shot right? In fact, if you have ever seen Jurassic Park, you know that all humans start out as inherently female, but receive an extra hormone at the proper stage of development and thus become males. So in a sense, you beat the odds when you become a male – until you start dealing with females, I suppose.

As a certified representative of the male species, I feel I can speak for most of the guys out there. I do not consider myself that unique or so over-the-top intellectually that I cannot relate to, or speak for, the general male population- so here it goes. I actually went into this march  with an open mind. I am not one to do copious amounts of research and barf up stats to prove a point. I believe what I believe and you probably believe differently than me. As far as I am concerned, that is good enough. I rely more on personal experience than anything else. This is why I do not go in for couple’s therapy or any other sort of counseling. I do not believe anyone can read a book and solve my problems – the very problems they never heard until 5 minutes prior.

When I was in school, every girl I knew was, overall, a better student than me. They were smarter, more detailed and on the road to success. They did not complain when they got the worst jobs on research projects or had to pull the D student along in a group presentation or whatever. In short, almost ALL of them were ahead of me at graduation. Perhaps this is why I never bought into the “equal right” grievance. Sure, that happened in the 50’s and 60’s, but by Mary Tyler Moore, that was coming to an end- Then I tuned into yesterday’s event.

As you may or may not know, I was in DC for the original women’s march on January 21st. Everyone I talked to (a small sample of about 20) was upset or oppressed, but NONE of them could tell me why. Fast forward to yesterday, and it was déjà vu. This group of gals looked exactly like the group of students from Georgetown and George Washington Universities from late January. On top of that, the stories of schools closing since all of the teachers felt the need to project their lack of appreciation really soured this whole mess. We all know teachers, real teachers not administrators, barely live above the poverty line. It is disgusting. Now your dashing literary guide here reveres teachers above almost all others. The teachers I know do it because they want to make a difference – perhaps this was their motivation to attend the march. Sadly, they were overshadowed by the mundane, mindless chanters of what is becoming the mainstream left. Let’s start at the top. The organizer of this march was, get this, a freaking convicted terrorist who lied about her criminal past in order to gain her U.S. citizenship in 2004. She was convicted of immigration fraud in 2014. If you read her website, she sounds more like a national hero than a criminal. So immediately I thought- this is not pro-woman, but more anti-American. I know, I am jaded and unfair. Then you get this burst of genius:

 


 

So who births the other half? This ludicrous statement not only lacks common sense but does nothing to advance the grievances that plague today's modern woman. “Oh Spencer, that is the fringe left,” you say? Fine. I concede that point as narrow.

HuffPo Cate Blanchett

Here is another example from well-known actress Cate Blanchett. Generally you would not say something like this if you want to be taken seriously. 

WHAT?!?!? Now I would have to argue that if this were true, then no one would believe in abortion of any kind. Let me give you some perspective. For a guy, if your moral compass is in your penis, it actually means you have no moral compass. This may represent the intelligence and attitudes of a part, half, or the majority of the left. Who knows? The problem is that in the absence of knowledge you will plug in anything for its substitute. This is a daunting problem today and one that sabotages both sides of any argument. When you have a gathering like this, and all you hear are mindless chants and thick-headed statements, it reduces the attention paid to what may be a real problem (see the daily accusations of racism). Admittedly, I was blowing this off by the time they reached 1602 Pennsylvania Ave.

I have always thought if you were a strong woman, you did not have to tell anyone. It just came across in your aura and people knew. It transcends politics and ideology. Andrea Tantaros is a strong woman. Laura Ingraham is a strong woman. Megyn Kelly is a strong woman. Hillary Clinton projects strength, but I do not consider her a strong woman. She blames others too much for her pitfalls. You have to think about the strong women in your life. My mother is a strong woman. She left her family in Australia when she was 20 and came to America with nothing after marrying my father. My wife (who reads this and whose husband wants to buy a ’67 Camaro) is a strong woman. She puts up with me. My boss is a strong woman (see wife comment). My teachers were strong women. Most of the women I served with in the Army were stronger than most of the men I served with, and yes, my editor is a strong ass-kicking woman. Get this: strong women attract strong men and vice versa. That couple is now twice as strong, so they have strong kids and on and on. They did not need a march or a bullhorn to let people know they are strong. You just know. The strongest women around went to work yesterday to provide for their families or to keep people safe or just because that was what they thought they should do. I like to believe they are stronger because of us. Who else will open jars, smash spiders, change a light bulb, remove dead animals, bury family pets, etc.? They most likely would, but it makes us feel needed when we do those things. I did not have to watch a demonstration to know that women should be appreciated. That is up to me to do. I respect women - if for nothing else than putting up with men. The marches and demonstrations only erode that.

 

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.

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.