When Elizabeth I established colonies in the New World, Britishers who settled in the Southern region found a soil and climate that favored large crops. But they lacked the manpower needed for planting and tilling. The settlers relied on New England slave traders who imported great numbers of slaves into their Boston seaport. Slave trading, and later Southern grown cotton, essentially created the wealth of New England.
Although commercial interests in the Northeast were heavily dependent on Southern planters, there was an absence of social relationships. Agriculture and industry require different kinds of workers. Northerners felt no remorse in castigating Southern plantations for using slave labor although the North frequently employed child labor in its factories.
Southerners eventually seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America. The Confederacy had its own customs and traditions based on the concept of State’s Rights. But the Northern establishment has described them as “American pseudo historical mythology” or simply “The Lost Cause.” But it wasn’t a “lost” cause but a “different” cause from what was being promoted by the North.
These conflicting North/South versions of society, and not simply slavery, are what led to the ‘War Between the States.’ Abraham Lincoln himself stated the purpose for the ‘War’ was not to free slaves but to keep the Southern states in the Union. Lincoln also stated; "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists."
In fact, the ‘War’ raged for two years before the Emancipation Proclamation was issued and that document only freed certain slaves. Lincoln’s Proclamation was actually a war measure to maintain the support of European Nations. It only freed slaves in regions engaged in military actions against the Union. Slaves in other regions were not freed.
Roughly a dozen years after the ‘War Between the States’ ended, there was a contested presidential election involving Democrat Samuel Tilden and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. At that time, a couple of Southern states were still occupied by Union troops, attempting to enforce the failing Reconstruction efforts. Republicans made a deal with Democrats, the ‘Compromise of 1877.’ If their candidate, Hayes, could be made President, Republicans would withdraw the remaining Union troops occupying the South. So a backroom political deal ended twelve years of Reconstruction.
Currently, members of the Black community are demanding reparations based on the slavery of their ancestors. But two thorny questions plague 21st century demands for reparations. Should the current generation of Whites be held responsible for actions of a previous generation? And are today’s free Blacks entitled to reparations simply for being descendants of slaves ?
An example of how historical evaluations change is how our 14th president, Franklin Pierce, has been depicted by historians. Pierce, who occupied the White House from 1853 to 1857, was a Northerner with Southern sympathies. Franklin Pierce ranks in the top ten most handsome presidents as well as the top ten youngest presidents.
Some historians have considered him a failed president. Their disparagement of Pierce stems from his refusal to act aggressively to end slavery. But Pierce maintained that since slavery was legal, Congress must amend the Constitution making it illegal. Otherwise, he didn’t have the authority to eliminate it. That was a correct decision.
Franklin Pierce was also criticized for his support of popular sovereignty, allowing residents to decide how their states would be governed. Pierce signed into law the Kansas-Nebraska Act that allowed residents of these newly formed states to decide for themselves whether slavery would be allowed. The creation of these states involved the repeal of the Missouri Compromise which had outlawed slavery in these lands. Some maintain these actions lead to the Civil War. But that conflict had been brewing for some time, the result of long-standing social and political differences between the regions.
Slavery stereotypes characterize vignettes of the antebellum South. Although 75% of Southern families in the eighteen-hundreds did not own slaves, establishment journalists portray the antebellum South as a slaveocracy. But contrary to what many believe, only 4% of antebellum White Southerners lived on plantations with 20 or more African slaves. The vast majority of White Southerners were not wealthy and had to work to support themselves, many working alongside African slaves.
Before becoming president, Franklin Pierce served in the Senate with Jefferson Davis who would later become president of the Confederate States of America. The two became lifelong friends and when Pierce became president, he made Davis his Secretary of War. When, after the Civil War, Davis was imprisoned awaiting trial for treason, Pierce offered to defend him. Davis looked forwarded to testing the legality of secession in court but Northern prosecutors canceled the trial and released Davis.
Although today’s journalists associate slavery with the antebellum South, the practice was common in other parts of the country. It is estimated that the Cherokee Nation owned roughly 5,000 African slaves. The use of slave labor was a common practice even in prehistoric times. Long before towns and villages were established, nomadic hunters and gatherers used slave labor. The institution of slavery even predates the emergence of religious beliefs and is still a common practice in many parts of the world.
Although journalists were once considered members of a profession and held in esteem, their attempts to report history have not been successful. Today’s news reporters have achieved more celebrity-hood than their predecessors but they are not esteemed by the public. Impartial journalistic reporting has essentially been replaced with advocacy journalism.
The news of the day can be so distressful that it could cause something akin to “paranoia” in a growing segment of the population. Many persons consider paranoia to be a form of mental illness but the term can simply mean dreading something that may or may not occur. Slanted media coverage of a particular phenomenon might make the public hypersensitive about what is happening. The average person is highly unlikely to scrutinize media reports so whatever is reported is usually accepted, even stereotypical views.
In the past, establishment historians tended to rank Franklin Pierce as a failed president. But recent biographies have re-assessed his presidency and it is now being presented in a more favorable light. During his presidency, Pierce had to cope with his wife’s mental deterioration, the deaths of his three young sons before their twelfth birthdays, and his periods of depression and his dependence on alcohol. But regardless of setbacks, Franklin Pierce was a fully functioning president and never neglected his presidential duties.
At this time of year we should recall that Franklin Pierce was the first president to include a Christmas Tree in the White House.
On Tuesday, December 6th, 2022, Georgia’s voters will choose between two diametrically opposed candidates to fill one of their Senate seats; Republican Herschel Walker and Democrat Raphael Warnock. The seat is currently held by Warnock whose socio/political views are those held by Stacey Abrams , who could be called Warnock’s mentor. Abrams views include typical Leftists positions, accusations of Black voter supression, LGBTQ+equalty, same sex marriage, unlimited abortion rights and, of course, the usual race baiting .
Admittedly Herschel Walker is a representational candidate. He wasn’t chosen for his political skills and talents but for what he symbolizes. But the Left’s criticism of Walker is contradictory . They oppose his political positions while accusing him of not articulating his positions. And most of their disapproval is focused on unsavory events in Walker’s personal life.
The Right’s opposition to Warnock also goes far beyond his political positions. Warnock’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, MLK’s former pulpit, is the largest church in the Atlanta area. But Warnock ‘s church’s callous dealings with its apartment renters might not have happened during King’s time. A circulating story describes the eviction of a tenant for non-payment or late payment of roughly $25.00. While evicting tenants for small delinquent payments, the church pays Warnock a church salary of $7,417 per month. However, his church is exempt from paying income tax under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
The Internal Revenue Service hasn’t always taken action against flawed clergy like Raphael Warnock. His improprieties may not be on the level with Jimmy Swaggert or Jim Bakker but they shouldn’t go unheeded.
In addition to his divisive political positions, Warnock’s personal life has also been a disaster. His ex-wife accused him of abuse including running over her foot with his car. There are other reports of violence against his family and also claims of his refusal to pay child care expenses. And MLK’s niece denies his claims of closeness with her uncle.
But Warnock is a favorite of the Leftist establishment and they support his extreme views. He often faults our country and makes sardonic accusations that White folks should repent their Whiteness. In fact, traditions of White America seems to be one of his primary targets. And with accusations of White privilege being so widespread, I don’t think we need another senator who claims Whites should repent their Whiteness.
The book of Genesis recounts the tale of the Babylonians attempt to build a tower that would reach into the heavens. But God prevented the tower’s construction by having the workers speak so many different languages that they couldn’t communicate. These frustrated workers migrated to different parts of the earth with others who spoke their language. This is the Biblical explanation of different languages in different countries.
Not only are there different languages but language is often used deceptively, frequently by members of Congress. They use clever language to cover up their abuse of their elected office. A classic case being Nancy Pelosi. During her decades in office, Pelosi’s investor husband Paul always knew, long before the public knew, when and how pending legislations would affect certain industries - so his investments were always successful, and the Pelosis amassed enormous wealth as a result of their insider trading scam.
In prior years corrupt Congress persons, like Pelosi, could be voted out of office but that is difficult with today’s rigged elections. And those who question election results are disparaged with the negative label “election deniers.”
Many believe Kari Lake was denied the Arizona governorship as a result of a fraudulent election. Lake and her lawyers are challenging the legality of the Arizona election. If the Arizona’s governor race is overturned it should encourage investigations of other questionable elections. And there are entirely too many questionable elections.
Experts predicted an abundance of Republican victories if the midterm elections were conducted fairly and the votes counted fairly. Unfortunately, the 2022 midterm elections not only had numerous voting machine failures, but paper ballots were often misplaced and found later. It often took several days to determine the winner of a local election and results are still being questioned.
Many are questioning if America will ever have a fair election in the future. And unfortunately some actually think fraudulent elections are justified because of the importance of the issues involved.
Admittedly our current society is far removed from what was envisioned by the Founders. In May 2022 , opinion polls indicated 78 % thought the country was headed in the wrong direction. Just six months later in November 2022, 85 % held that opinion. Americans are disillusioned with both the ineptitude and the corruption of their leaders. And they are not sure how to remedy the situation and worrying what will happen if it’s not remedied.
Dumbing Down in a Pollyanna Society
The disparaging characterization “dumbing down” has been resurrected to describe our current society. Today’s credulous folk rarely question leftist activists especially their claim that ‘all people are equal.’ All people might be born equal but only some have satisfactory lives while others do not. Social activists blame success or failure on society rather than individuals. They claim that lack of achievement is the result of societal flaws; racism, xenophobia, bigotry, sexism, ageism and other forms of intolerance.
If activists can convince our leaders that society is holding people back then our leaders must reorder society. Activists have already implemented various ‘feel-good’ changes in order to create an accommodating society. Their imagined society would have been a powerful social panacea wherein differently qualified groups became equals. But the envisioned paradisaical society has never materialized.
Social scientists try to make groups equal with their impressive sounding theories: diversity, multiculturalism and egalitarianism. Diversity implies inclusiveness of dissident groups. However a nation cannot function as a collection of dissident groups. Minorities must assimilate into the majority but assimilation of groups goes against diversity.
We are living in a strange new time with a strange new vocabulary. This vocabulary involves what I would call manipulative terminology, an old political phenomenon once called ‘spin.’ I maintain that diversity, egalitarianism and multiculturalism are a sophisticated form of spin. They are not only questionable theories but political ploys.
Societal groups have been greatly affected by manipulative terminology like diversity. Black minorities have always assimilated into the White majority without abandoning essential aspects of their own culture. This Black/White assimilation has worked well. But segments of the Black minority, ostensibly influenced by concepts like diversity, have recently become reluctant to assimilate. Maintaining their independence is not economically advantageous, so it appears to be a political decision.
Pollyanna is an excellent characterization of today’s social activists. What keeps them going is focusing only on the positive and ignoring the negative. However, society has become so derelict that they can no longer look the other way. And it may be too late for activists to replace idealism with realism.
Our contemporary society has been variously described as broken, shallow, narcissistic, and without purpose. We've had flawed societies in the past but there was usually a feeling that normal conditions could be restored. But there are no hopeful recovery signs for our current defective society.
In the not-too-distant past, rarely a day would go by without some media reference to racism. But, over time, racism has lessened in importance. There are still anti-racism movies and TV programs. And social activists still demand an end to racism in order to achieve ‘social justice.’ But inflation is now the country’s number one concern, followed by immigration, crime, and climate change. Racism is no longer a major concern, but we still encounter sporadic uncorroborated racial complaints.
Devious Black organizations are surreptitiously using racism to justify their disparagement of Whites. Their scheme involves a cleverly worded ploy called ‘critical race theory (CRT).’ It has an academic sound but it is just a political strategy and is not supported by empirical evidence. CRT asserts 1) race is only a social construct to control blacks and 2) our country’s laws and institutions are inherently racist. CRT is an essential part of today’s anti-Whiteness trend.
Decades of interminable attempts to ‘end racism’ did not placate Black grievance groups or White liberals. They only altered certain aspects of society. We renamed buildings and streets, took down statues, removed library books, lowered college admission standards, imposed furtive hiring quotas on businesses, and made other unwise changes. But resentful Blacks continued to demand more concessions.
Any mention of resentful Blacks brings to mind Michelle Obama. When her husband was elected as our first Black president, Michelle publicly stated; “For the first time I am really proud of this country.” Apparently Michelle felt no pride in America when it had White presidents. Her patriotism seems to be constricted by race.
Michelle Obama also didn’t like living in the White House because it was "a house that was built by slaves." But she didn’t refuse the perquisites that come with being First Lady. Michelle is a supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement and she often disparages Whites on her Podcast. We assume she shares her husband Barack’s support of Critical Race Theory.
Critical Race Theory is an Anti-White, Anti-Capitalism, Marxist influenced initiative, a covert form of reverse racism. It divides Americans into two major categories; Black victims and White supremacists. One of its typical assertions is Whites are healthier and have less diseases than Blacks because their healthcare is superior to the healthcare Blacks receive.
CRT opposes equality. It promotes a version of ‘equity’ wherein people are treated differently based on their needs. It even has a concept known as “math equity.” Whites are faulted for insisting there is only one correct answer to a math question, i.e., two plus two equals four. CRT allows members of different ethnic groups flexibility with their answers so two plus two might equal 5 or 7 and either answer is acceptable.
This anti-White CRT theory is backed by the American Federation of Teachers and is still being taught in some public schools. But almost half of the states have either banned school classes on CRT or have pending legislation to ban them. And many parents are sending their children to private schools. However some public school teachers adamantly claim they will continue to teach CRT even if it is banned.
Using CRT to lambast Whites is fairly common on MSNBC programs hosted by Joy Reid. CRT is defended by Reid who refers to it as “race conscious education” and she called Florida governor DeSantis a racist for criticizing CRT. But MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace denies the existence of critical race theory. She maintains that it was simply a political ploy to frighten voters into voting for conservative Republicans.
The Confederacy existed in a radically different era and adhered to the legal and ethical standards of its time. But some of our so-called authorities evaluate the Confederacy using today’s standards. This creates an unfair depiction of Confederates.
Our first Black Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin proposes to spend 63 million taxpayer dollars to remove names of Confederate leaders from nine military bases. Yes, you read that correctly. 63 million taxpayer dollars to change the names of nine military bases. This massive expenditure of taxpayer dollars comes at a time when roughly half of American families are struggling to pay their bills. And many families can’t afford food or medical treatments.
Lloyd Austin’s unwise 63 million dollar expenditure to diminish the South’s history is no surprise. Austin is a classic example of an anti-Southern Washington leftist. He was appointed the first Black commander of Central Command by President Barack Obama. And President Joe Biden selected Austin as his Secretary of Defense.
Service members complained that under Austin’s leadership they have been subjected to diversity training and indoctrinated on Critical Race Theory, police brutality, White privilege, and systemic racism. Lloyd Austin is abusing the authority of his office to pursue a personal agenda.
Lloyd Austin does not like Whites especially Southern Whites. So he plans to remove the names of Confederate leaders from military bases. These military bases have been around since the early 1900s. One of the targeted bases is Fort Lee in Virginia, named after Confederate general Robert E. Lee. It is suggested that Fort Lee be renamed for Oveta Culp Hobby, the first director of the Women’s Army Corp.
Secretary of Defense Austin will destroy a crucial part of American history by renaming civil war forts after persons who have no connections with the military. A typical suggested name replacement is Harriet Tubman who escaped from slavery and helped other slaves escape using the Underground Railroad. But she has no connection to the military.
Austin’s efforts are strongly supported by Maryland’s Anthony Brown, another anti-White Black politician. These are Brown’s comments on renaming the forts: “I’ve long maintained that traitorous men who fought to preserve the institution of slavery and defend white supremacy do not deserve to be honored by our military, and it is long past time their names were removed from places of reverence.”
Brown is not what you would call an authority on American history. He simply reiterates the simplistic, socio/political interpretations. Brown would approve of the current trend of plaques being placed next to statues of some of our famous heroes . These plaques denigrate these famous persons by indicating their involvement with slavery, even though slavery was legal during their lifetimes.
I must mention this. There is talk of renaming Confederate grave markers. (I promise I didn’t make this up.) These self-anointed do-gooders actually want to change the name of the deceased on a grave marker if it has a Confederate connection. This is not only deceitful but immoral.
I’m speaking as a White male resident of Georgia. Like many other Georgians, I am deeply worried about the November 2022 Gubernatorial election. It will be a rematch of the 2018 contest between a White male, Nelson Kemp and a Black female , Stacey Abrams. In a very close vote, Kemp won the 2018 election and became Governor.
But Abrams refused to concede, insisting that she won the election but it was stolen from her. The Leftist establishment made Abrams a media celebrity for refusing to concede the 2018 election. Stacey Abrams knows the Left is susceptible to “grievance politics” so she claimed her loss resulted from “back room” illicit vote altering by bigoted White Southerners.
At the time of the 2018 Georgia Governor campaign, Abrams was deeply in debt and struggling to survive. But the Leftist media supported her claim that gender and race prevented her from being Georgia’s governor. Media also agreed with Stacey that she would have won the election if Georgia’s White leaders hadn’t suppressed Black votes . Media hype about Abrams helped draw large crowds to her public appearances. And it enhanced the sale of her books. Stacey Abrams is now a millionaire.
According to Abrams “Georgia is the worst state in the country to live.” However, she owns not one but two homes in the state, with a combined worth of roughly 1.5 million dollars. Abrams despises White folks and makes frequent anti-White accusations. She must think White Georgians will ignore her criticisms and support her candidacy for governor.
In Abrams favor, since 2018 Georgia’s population has become younger and less White. But many Blacks apparently feel that Abrams hasn’t done enough for the Black community. In the current governor’s race, Abrams financial support comes primarily from out-of-state, only 14% comes from Georgians. (A significant portion of Abrams’ financial support is from entertainment celebrities.) On the other hand, 83% of financial support for her White male opponent, Nelson Kemp, comes from Georgians.
“Too extreme for Georgia” is a typical description of Stacey Abrams. She previously burned the Georgia state flag because it contained a depiction of the Confederate battle flag. Now she demands the removal of Robert E. Lee and other Confederate figures from Stone Mountain. If Abrams is elected Governor, removing the Stone Mountain carvings would probably be one of her priorities.
Another of her priorities as Governor would be improving school curricula and student education. Abrams is concerned that students aren’t being taught what she calls “accurate history.” She claims that textbooks and instruction by teachers do not adequately address “slavery, bigotry and discrimination.” Abrams also claims there is insufficient classroom coverage of Critical Race Theory.
Ms. Abrams claims to be an authority on the Bible as her parents were both pastors. She maintains that the Bible supports abortion but Biblical scholars have refuted her, demanding that she either prove her accusation or withdraw it. Abrams opposes Georgia’s heartbeat law which denies abortions if a heartbeat can be detected. Instead, she states that abortions should be allowed “right up to the time of birth.”
Stacey Abrams has always gone a little overboard with her opinions. She calls Georgia’s recent voter ID laws “the new Jim Crow.” And she angrily demanded; "The impassioned response to the racist, classist bill that is now the law of Georgia is to boycott in order to achieve change," Major League Baseball responded by moving its All-Star game from Atlanta to Denver. This move cost Georgia companies and Georgia workers millions of dollars.
Abrams insists that if Nelson Kemp is reelected Governor, he will try to re-segregate the state of Georgia. Yes. You read that correctly. In the 21st century, a Southern governor will re-impose segregation on his state. We have to wonder if Abrams truly thinks the public actually believes her bizarre accusations.
Like many Georgians, I am not deceived by Stacey Abrams distortions and hyperboles. And I hope the public doesn’t judge Abrams by media hype. I resent her claim that Black Georgians are denied voting rights. And I obviously object to Abrams extreme anti-Whiteness. A Stacey Abrams Governorship would be a disaster for Georgia, and disaster is not too strong a word.
Many of us no longer lend credence to national news media reports - events are not reported factually but are heavily influenced by contemporary political opinions. Some folks may believe news media, but most 21st Century Americans are not that naive. And the regime media no longer pretends to be impartial; it even boasts about the political causes it supports.
If you scan today’s news you will find quite a few of former Attorney General William Barr’s opinions. Bill Barr is currently in what we might call his “honeymoon” period with the American press. He is using this criticism-free media period to lambaste Donald Trump, a favorite with Middle America.
Although Barr has had a lengthy, largely scandal-free, legal career, that doesn’t vindicate his current political opinions. Actually, Barr himself seems to have changed after resigning from the Trump administration - ostensibly over a disagreement about the 2020 election. (Trump thought the election results were rigged whereas Barr felt the election was fair.) Like many others, I agree with Trump.
After his resignation, Barr has turned on Donald Trump. We would like to think that Barr’s anti-Trump posture was based on political disagreements rather than personal animosity. Bill Barr ‘s anti-Trump comments were welcomed by the Left. They fit into its efforts to prevent Donald Trump from serving a second presidential term.
We are well aware of Trump’s flaws (and they are many) but they don’t outweigh his accomplishments. The Left hoped Barr would reveal some hitherto unknown fault about Trump, but Barr could reveal nothing serious enough to prevent a second presidential run. So Donald Trump remains Middle America’s choice for president despite concerns about his character and temperament.
Bill Barr questioned Trump’s sanity for claiming the 2020 election was stolen. But many of us also question the fairness of the 2020 election. We are not “election deniers” as the Left claims, we just have concerns about the fairness of the 2020 Presidential election.
Bill Barr didn’t come off well in his various media encounters, especially the National Public Radio interview. Neither Barr nor NPR appeared to be prepared for what could have been an informative session. Many of Barr’s claims should have been “fact checked”, or at least questioned, but NPR blithely accepted Barr’s responses.
We know the Left will try to rig both the 2022 midterms and the 2024 election to keep Republicans out of office. For Leftist Democrats “the end justifies the means” and they will do whatever is necessary to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office. But even with his many shortcomings, Trump still ranks higher with the public than any potential Democratic contender.
Bill Barr seems to be savoring the attention he is getting, testifying before committees and appearing on television. But his “opinions” have been exempted from criticism for too long and should now be subjected to scrutiny.
Liz Cheney’s failed re-election strategy was so inept that it has been called “electorial suicide.” She ignored voters' concerns about such things as inflation, crime, illegal immigration, and based her entire re-election campaign solely on her one issue “Trump Hatred.” Preventing Trump from being reelected president has become an obsession with Cheney.
Cheney patterns herself after Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, the classic cases of female career politicians. These two became media favorites and, over the years the media has exaggerated their accomplishments and downplayed their failures. Liz Cheney hopes media will give her the same favorable treatment it gave Clinton and Pelosi.
Liz Cheney doesn’t seem to understand why she was so seriously rejected by her home state, Wyoming. Cheney’s reaction to her humiliating House defeat was to consider running for president. Yes. You read that correctly.
There is quite a difference between the general public and members of the U.S. House Select Committee that was created to investigate the disturbances at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Before this Democratic committee held its first hearing, it had already decided to blame Donald Trump for the the January 6 capitol riots. Nancy Pelosi herself selected the members for the committee and a belief in Trump’s guilt was almost a condition of membership.
The January 6 committee includes 7 Democrats and 2 RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). Pelosi excluded Republicans from the committee. One of those RINOs was turncoat Republican Liz Cheney. Pelosi not only selected her recent ally, Liz Cheney, but even made Cheney the Vice Chair of the committee. Cheney’s well known Trump hatred clinched her appointment.
Although the Pelosis are billionaires, Paul Pelosi continues to take advantage of every governmental assistance program available. This includes the “Paycheck Protection Plan” designed to assist small businesses during the Coronavirus pandemic. The “Paycheck Protection Plan” was designed to assist struggling small businesses, not bolster the income of billionaires like Paul Pelosi.
During Nancy’ Pelosi’s years in office, her husband Paul amassed a fortune by making what appeared to be wise investment decisions. Congress members are forbidden from stock trading, because of their “insider” knowledge of pending legislation. Spouses of Congress members, like Paul Pelosi, often rely on “insider” info to develop successful investment practices.
Liz Cheney is a member of one of Wyoming’s wealthiest political families. Although her father Dick Cheney is not held in high esteem by the citizenry, he has a net worth in excess of $100 million. In a few short, and profitable, years his daughter Liz’s net worth has increased from $ 7 million to 44 million. This abrupt turn of fortune is certainly possible, but highly unlikely.
Cheney is one of only ten Republicans who voted for Trump’s impeachment. As a prominent member of the January 6 committee investigating the attack on the Capitol, Liz Cheney offered her personal condemnation of Trump. "The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President."
This is one of many uncorroborated and continuing accusations against Donald Trump from Liz Cheney and her ilk. Admittedly Donald Trump is a flawed individual but even with his flaws, our country was much better off under his leadership than under the leadership of the current occupant of the White House.
Gail Jarvis is a Georgia-based free-lance writer. He attended the University of Alabama and has a degree from Birmingham Southern College. His writing is influenced by years of witnessing how versions of news and history were distorted for political reasons. Mr. Jarvis is a member of the Society of Independent Southern Historians and his articles have appeared on various websites, magazines, and publications for several organizations. He lives in Coastal Georgia.