Thursday, May 24, 2018

Why So Many School Shootings?

By Tom Wise

There are multiple realities in school shootings.

First, why schools? One might say it is the "gun-free zone" which attracts school shootings, but there are other gun-free zones that don't share such dangerous pattern. One might say it is all the children packed in like neat fish in a barrel, but a Little League baseball game or a mall are also similarly populated, and don't suffer such statistics. Indeed, a school or campus is an odd place for a shooting except for one thing: there is a mandatory recurring schedule of a particular person or persons, whether teacher or student. Who would want to know this? Almost certainly, another student or teacher. Why would they want to know this? Almost certainly, someone has been, or believes themselves to be, bullied or persecuted. It makes sense then that school violence erupts from prior violence, whether it be physical or emotional, actual or perceived. That is to say, there are no cheerful stable people shooting up schools.

Second, bullying. Can we acknowledge that bullying is terrible, and not downplay the role of bullying on the lives of children? Regardless whether it's children or teachers tormenting other children or teachers, schools are brutal places where dissimilar people are forced to congregate, and work out their differences under mostly casual supervision. This is not to justify school shootings as natural consequences of bullying or schools. Gun ownership and bullying have both been prevalent through all eras of history, but the gun has only recently been the tool of revenge. In fact, bullying has coexisted even in schools which provided gun (and archery) training and team sports. So if it's not the availability of weaponry which is the catalyst for school shootings, what might it be?

One possible problem which has been increasing is mental illness, and treatment of it. How long have we been drugging our "ADD" and "ADHD" boys with Ritalin (1960's) and Adderall (1990's)? How has this affected overall societal aggressiveness, either increasing it in volcanic lads, or submerging it too deeply so that one day it explodes like Vesuvius? What about Xanax and other benzodiazepines? This 2017 article ( says that 130,000 TODDLERS have been prescribed benzos! What about SSRI prescriptions for manic-depression, clinical depression, and other disorders? This 2017 article ( estimated that about 8.8% of people between 18 and 44 were on SSRI as of 2014. Although SSRI prescription percentage for children and teens with depression is unclear, even 2% indicates one person on such medication in every classroom of 50 people. These numbers do not even count the number of children and teens with some form of mental illness which is not being treated which may cause violent tendencies anyway. Some may downplay violent tendencies as "harmless" growing pains, but the victims don’t think so. Thus, the dilemma is, to drug or not to drug.

The core of treating mental illness today seems to be to "stuff it down," especially where it concerns anxious, angry, or hyperactive boys. This should be a cause of concern for all of us. It has never been a very good mental health strategy to stuff. It is good to teach kids to behave correctly but it serves no purpose to drug them to get what the inconvenienced adult wants, which is essentially peace and quiet. It is a condemnation of adult patience and effort that drugged is a common go-to. Perhaps that's why teen drug use has become more acceptable; not that it has been proved harmless, but that it keeps them quiet or busy that much longer. Sad!

There also seems to be an uptick in criminal mindset. I don't mean criminal statistics, which have actually been falling for many years ( I mean the gangsta stance, the craving for respect which most times has not been earned (see Jordan Peterson for more), and the glorification of Mafiosi in film and music. Add to that radical behavior which is not classified as criminal, including violent activism of Antifa and other such groups. Add to that behavior and actions which cause minds to become broken, including adultery which breaks up homes, underage sex and abortion, and other loose activity which sets no boundaries and causes moral confusion. Some may classify these behaviors as merely erratic, some as moral issues with no true connection to childhood and teenage violence, and some may think this is all perfectly normal and natural. This too is a problem in our schools, the disunity of our society, and the making of enemies along lines which adolescents traditionally did not, as a rule, think about. Since the 1960's, this "us against them" mentality has pervaded not only normal teen angst and rebellion, but also teenage politics, socio-economics, and religion. Some might say this is good competition to societal norms, but much of it is coerced and fostered at the adult level, for example, when a teacher threatens student grades for having this or that view on capitalism or conservatism or Christianity.

This is not to say that conservatives are the perpetrators of school shootings. Indeed, it has more often than not been the work of a Left-leaning mentally-ill person who (again, more often than not) is on prescription meds for that illness. So it is that the combination of a permissive society that likewise glorifies criminal behavior, coupled with an inconvenienced adult population that medicates its agitated and depressed sons, finds itself faced with homicidal and doped-up (primarily) male shooters.

Some say this is the intentional work of the government, a conspiracy to create such shooters for the express purpose of banning guns in America. This implies that all it takes is a shocked populace to change the Constitution, when in fact it would take three-quarters of the States in an Article V Convention to make such amendment to the Amendments. It also implies that an armed American populace, including its criminals, would voluntarily give up their one billion arms and 1 trillion bullets. It also implies that such a disarmament Amendment would not immediately be followed up with a reversal through the more numerous concerned citizens who treasure their personal safety and freedom. So while communism indeed has plans to disarm America, their shrieking voices are louder than their actual numbers. Nevertheless, communism must be destroyed because it uses such things as school shootings to bolster its ranks under the banner of "caring" and "sympathy."

Is there a solution for school shootings? Ten million marching for "the children" (actually, for disarmament) cannot stop a random mentally-ill homicidal male from taking the lives of those he believes have irreparably harmed him. Perhaps a greater police or guard presence, or armed teachers, makes some sense to us, but it only acknowledges reality without changing it. That is, a determined mentally-ill shooter will find his target sooner or later. The only permanent solution is to change the way we handle perceived mental illness, and to decide if we want to continue glorifying criminal behavior.

On that latter point, there is one more element: attention-seeking. For not only is it the objective of the school shooter to be rid of his perceived tormentors, but also to garner some attention for himself which affirms his plight, which the media are only too happy to accommodate. Thus, the short but blistering fame of the school shooter is glorified, even immortalized, as useful fodder by such attention whores as CNN and other communications outlets, as well as the Communist Party, and Hillary Clinton, to name a few. We pick only on the Left here because the Right does not benefit in any way from school shootings, neither in its politics or religion or rights.

Friday, May 18, 2018

How to Begin Solving Gun Violence

The political Right is illustrated as being for the current hierarchy and for little change, and the Left is drawn as being for the little guy and against bullying. The problem is that one is not the oppressor and one is not the savior. 

What if every conservative were drummed out of office? Then the Left could get their way, right? What would be the first move on guns? Why, to control them so hard no one could EVER say the Left didn't "do something." Two things here: 

(1) To accomplish this requires complete fascism over guns, and over whoever is in favor of guns, regardless of how "mild" your gun control is, because whoever dissents must be moved out of the way, right? 

(2) You won't stop criminal behavior, you won't stop rage, you won't stop crimes of passion, you won't stop mental illness. Or will you? How? 

The response to me shall be "But we must TRY!" We do try. We HAVE tried. We have gun-free zones when that in itself smacks of unconstitutionality. We have gun-free STATES (New York, for example). But you know what we do NOT have. We do not have a united front against gang warfare, inner city crime, hostile immigrants where they exist, and so on. 

Think about THIS: 

It's NOT "Save kids not guns" - it's "Save kids AND guns." 

It can be done. Just TRY.

Sunday, May 13, 2018

The Difficulty In Being A Conservative


by Tom Wise

It's hard to be conservative. It's hard because it's often a misused term. It's hard because we are fewer than Republicans at large. It's hard because we are the main target of the fear-mongering and emotional Leftist and left-wing radical. Conservatives are blamed for everything. If there is a bottleneck in Congress, it's the fault of the Freedom Caucus. If there is a shooting, the first instinct of the conservative is, "Uh oh, somehow this will be blamed on me." Or perhaps that is the second instinct.

The first difficulty is conservatism being properly defined. Technically, conservative means "close to the vest" - that is, reluctant to change something that isn't broke. This of course is in the eye of the beholder, because we often hear from our opponents how the system which we treasure is the one which is broken. There is a difference, however, between conservatives and their opponents, which is that conservatism is foundational and stable, while their opponents desire all manner of chaos in order to make their points and take power. Conservatism is also quite religious, usually founded in godly principles. Are there atheistic conservatives? This depends on the atheist, doesn't it? Many atheists subscribe to communism/socialism, or even "anarchy" (if that is a real thing), but there are a minority of atheists who are conservatives, and therefore mathematically a smaller minority of conservatives who are atheists. 

In the United States, conservatism equals republicanism, which means the States have unique power over the federal government, the citizens have power over the States through their legislatures, and Rights are inalienable via Constitution, the contract we have with the federal government which is supposed to keep the latter's power at bay. Often we hear that the United States is a "democracy" - and this is true to the extent that our voting system, except for President of the United States, is by majority rule. However, it is the States who make and amend the Constitution, their obvious inaction notwithstanding.

This brings us to the second difficulty of conservatism, the inadequate civic education of the people. When the people are ill-informed, all manner of conservative opponents and, frankly, enemies of the state are able to infiltrate weakened minds and therefore open-border (if you will) legislatures, courts, governorships, and so forth. The Republican Party, the conservative's supposed political arm, neglects to fill this gap, and it often falls on spirited citizens, and blocs such as Tea Party, to hold educationals forums and meetings. The Left, on the other hand, is extremely motivated - only to interpret the Constitution as broadly as possible (the opposite of conservatism). In courtrooms, and social media, every manner of argument is made to favor Leftist interpretation of constitutional and legal issues in a Leftist light. Meanwhile, conservatism is constantly on the ropes, defending fundamental rights which are attacked as "bigoted" and "oppressive" by a passionate and organized Left.

This brings us to the third difficulty of conservatism, the tendency of conservatives to not band together. Whether this is a reaction to Leftist organization, as a high-minded protest against such mobs, or whether it is even a genetic predisposition to be alone ("atomistic" is the term), it hurts conservatism, and helps its opponents, that conservatives just want to be left alone. By contrast, Leftists can organize at the drop of a hat, are more technically oriented (for the most part), and will not often split their group over personal hatreds. In fact, it is rare to find a Leftist publicly attacking another Leftist, even one so obviously insane as Maxine Waters, whereas it is quite common to find Republicans demanding the resignation of another Republican for merely sounding a little "off" or "rough." The intrinsic problem with Republicans is, I believe, this preoccupation with "looking good" or "better than them" - and while conservatives are a bit more sturdy and pioneering, there is no shortage of conservatives (or so-called conservatives) browbeating other conservatives (or themselves!) over the most miniscule faux pas.

Such in-fighting and self-debasement is wonderful ammunition and target for the enemies and opponents of conservatism. It is quite easy to mark a Sarah Palin, for example, by saying she is disqualified for not knowing the "Bush Doctrine" or for implying you can see Russia from Alaska (a true statement, by the way). On the other hand, no matter what Nancy Pelosi says, you will rarely if ever hear a Democrat say it's time for her to retire. To take it to the extreme, Al Franken, who resigned in so-called shame, is already seeing an organized push for his re-re-election, even if he hasn't yet public embraced it (a strategy, not a conscience). I'm sure you can think of many more examples how the Left gets away with murder but the Right can't even blink incorrectly without it instigating banshee howls from not only the Left but members of the Right also!

The solution, in my opinion, is that conservatism, Republicans, and the Right in general needs to grow some courage and fortitude. It's not enough to claim victory with Trump when we endured TWO terms of Obama due to mealy-mouthed Republican candidates. It's not enough to think we have some hold on social media when the trajectory is actually more censorship against the Right, not less. Instead, there needs to be concerted efforts to embrace more Trump-like figures who don't apologize and explain little of "what they meant." There needs to be more technical investment at election time, and not reliance on the same tired phone lists which are 60% wrong and disconnected (the Left no longer use these). There are surely thousands of innovations which conservatism can put to use. The difficulty is, conservatism is reluctant to change ways and reluctant to organize. 

Saturday, May 12, 2018

On Racism & White Guilt


by Tom Wise

This is an opinion piece. It contains language which some may find offensive or detrimental to a particular cause or notion. With that in mind, on with the opinion...

I am against racism. There are good and bad in every race, so I judge individuals, not races.

The liberal, however, sees things, ironically, in black and white when it comes to racism. Either you believe in the concepts of Sytemic Racism, White Privilege, Male Patriarchy, Neo-Colonialism, Micro-Aggression, and so forth, or you are the enemy of the world. This is the liberal's view, yet it only seems to apply to white people. According to the liberal, only white people can be racist because white people hold all the cards, and keys to power. This, of course, is a ridiculous statement, but it is the basis of their belief system on racism. Even if the liberal were to admit racism on the part of non-whites, it would still be blamed somehow on white power, or white history, or white thought.

Rationally, however, all races have some systemic racism. Blacks have prejudices and show racism against other blacks, whites, Latins, and Orientals. Mexican vs. Guatemalan. Chinese vs. Japanese. Arab vs. Jew, black, and white. It's inherent in the human race to recollect history and war, to desire what someone else has, or to just fear or hate something different. It's not an exclusively white characteristic.

Consequently, the liberal, especially the white liberal, cannot think straight when it comes to explaining or battling racism. For example, the liberal cannot answer rationally if asked, Is everybody in the world battling racism at the same time and rate? Are the Japanese, and the Koreans, and Arabs, and blacks all trying to defeat racism with the same fervor and zest as whites seem to be?  I would posit that the world is just as racist as it ever was. Only in the liberal's mind is progress being made, and, ironically, only by white liberals in white nations!

So the next question for the liberal is, are white people the leaders of the world in fighting against racism? Are whites first and foremost in this area? If the liberal says Yes, he admits whites are superior here, but this is anathema for liberals in the modern day, because it dissolves the liberal's claim that whites are MOST racist if in fact they are most AGAINST racism. If the liberal says No, he must be pressed to answer which race is more active against racism than whites.

The next question for the liberal is, what is the purpose of fighting for the rights of all races if the other races are not doing likewise? If the liberal says it is the duty of the white race to lead in this arena, it must be asked if the other races are "backwards" or "primitive" when it comes to fighting racism.

I think you see where I'm going here. The white liberal's superior attitude in fighting racism is itself a superiority of race, even if the white liberal's main target is other white people. The white liberals throw mud at their own race, screaming at those who do not agree with their methods and tactics and chicanery, because at heart the white liberal must understand that the target of frustration must really be those of other races who do not share their beliefs. In other words, it is a way of saying "You're not trying hard enough" to whites rather than to all races because, for the white liberal, to expect other races to toe their reasonable line would constitute them being racist.

White liberalism has boxed itself in. If it does not act aggressively towards its own race, there seems to be lacking passion. If it expects the same from other races, there seems to be that old "oppression" they say they're fighting. Therefore, white liberalism is not against racism as much as it is against expecting the same from other races. This in itself is a form of racism because it says "You other races are not able to battle racism as well as the white race can battle racism" and they justify this by adding "...but you don't have to because the white race owes it to you."

I am not proposing we stop battling racism. Naturally, we have always fought against racism, but we have had to make our fight more visible online and elsewhere to keep the white liberal from destroying everything we've done. Unfortunately, even when we seek to appease the white liberal, this appeasement is used only to leverage more and more from us. As this further leverage is exerted, fewer and fewer want to take on the task of fighting racism. White liberalism therefore destroys the very thing it says it wants most, and (of course) blames not itself but those who balk. It is no wonder so many lose interest in helping society, when whatever is given with good intentions is slapped in the face.

I do not have a solution to this problem, since it is the nature of those who battle racism to want peace, and the nature of the white liberal radical to provoke disharmony and poke hornet's nests in order to justify their anger, and sometimes to justify their so-called non-profit organizations. All we can do is keep embracing individuals with whom we agree, no matter their race, to build the type of world which the liberal can only dream about, one of true equality under the banner of a flag which we respect as standing for our rights.

I put forward these opinions in the interest of conservative political science and philosophy. I hope they are received in the good-intentioned manner which I offer it.

Friday, June 2, 2017

The Suicidal White Left


by Tom Wise

Kathy Griffin posing with a simulated severed head of Donald Trump is a federal crime.
It's not free speech, and every person knows it.
It's a threat, a treachery, propaganda, and treason.
She must be insane for publicity if she is sane at all.
If not, she seeks her own demise, publicly and legally.

There's more to it, though.
That is an ISIS pose she struck.
Like Jihadi John, she is a terrorist, aiming to put fear into hearts.
She admitted to wanting Barron Trump frightened.
Obviously, she also believes President Trump will feel some fear from her.
She is demented, is she not?
Furthermore, the "stunt" as it were proves to those on the Left she means business.
This is a warning also to those on the Left who would "betray" her and the "cause."
Anderson Cooper should watch his back.
Or will he turn back to her?
Wait and see.

ISIS is howling with glee at our weakness in not arresting Griffin.
ISIS and any other Islamic country or organization would've done the right thing, and brought her to justice.
We do not.
By doing nothing, we prove to the Left and ISIS they can go further.
Why are we doing nothing?
Is this the plan?

Kathy Griffin threw in with ISIS with this fake decapitation.
This agrees with many whites on the Left who have already or will now join an ISIS-like anti-American terrorism.
Whether the ISIS-imitating "antifa" or the red-flag-waving Bill-Ayers-led communists, their numbers are growing.
They bloat with our inaction.
They drool for our essence, our natural resources and weapons.

However, they shall not get them.
Not because the sane whites on the Left, Right, and in the middle will stop them.
Oh no.
But rather because we will NOT stop these traitors to country and race.
Then, the Islamic militants who have been allowed to enter, settle, and train in the USA will come to life.
I would like to say we will beat them back, but we can't even beat back Kathy Griffin!
She is the epitome of ISIS behavior, and she walks free.
ISIS has little to fear, I think.

The Left has whipped up hysteria so that our friends, family, and neighbors believe Donald Trump is the insane one.
The only insanity I see, however, is in letting these people get away with it.
Where are the arrests for sedition against the likes of Kathy Griffin, Snoop Dogg, and Madonna?
You may call them "has-beens" but the Left calls them "heroes."
When you permit scum to be heroes, you get revolution.
By doing nothing, we are begging for it.

The white Left is suicidal because they invite ISIS into the very place they said should be safe for women and gays.
The white Left is suicidal because they think their lives will be uninterrupted by invaders and savages.
The white Left is suicidal for putting trust in godless men who want to nuke Mars and create other dimensions at CERN.
The white RIGHT, however, is suicidal for not putting a stop to this!

In every case, this is the REAL white privilege: to think anything goes and there will be no suffering for it.
There WILL be suffering.
There will be world war and local war, skirmishes and riots.
There will be chemical warfare and germ warfare, dirty bombs and suitcase bombs.
There will be patricide and matricide, fratricide and suicide.
There will be increased chemical dependency and apathy.
The Overton Window and normalcy bias will register off the charts.

If you cannot understand what I'm saying, there's something wrong with you.
If you cannot believe what I'm saying, I feel sorry for you but I also am very angry with you.
If America will not come together, America will be dragged apart.
That's all there is to it.
We live or die TOGETHER.
If not, our enemies will take our natural resources, and kill us with our own weapons.
This is and has been their plan from the start.

What do you think the Left's obsession with our guns and atomic weapons is all about?
What do you think the Left's obsession with our carbon and climate is all about?
What do you think the Left's obsession with education is all about?
They want the weapons and resources, and will do anything to win.

There is no option.
The Left is obviously suicidal.
However, they will not simply go away and leave us in charge.
They want to take us with them!
Therefore, by whatever means necessary, we must stop their suicidal march into oblivion.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Understanding Liberal Mania & Psychosis


by Tom Wise

You may think it is difficult to understand the liberal mindset, but it’s not.
While you struggle to understand liberals, they make no such effort to understand you, but only PRETEND to do so.
When you make salient and sane points, they come at it like a shark on chum rather than Aristotle to a puzzle.
When you try to attach yourself to their point of view, they detach to icy distraction.

Dealing with liberals is therefore the same as dealing with children, drunks, or former girlfriends.
It is an exercise in futility which will not educate either or you.
Nor will it provide any satisfaction.
As soon as you believe you’ve made your point, they will act as if you never spoke.
As soon as you ask for proof, they will storm off.

Do you understand yet?
You can only deal with liberals when you do not take them seriously.
This sounds easy but it is difficult for the average conservative who desires to deal in fairness when arguing.
Unlike the liberal who CLAIMS to be fair, the conservative IS fair – to a fault.
Your trust is misplaced in the liberal.
They will not play fair, be compassionate, behave civilly, or do any of the other things they claim to believe in.
They cannot, because they don’t know how.
They only know how to DEMAND that YOU be fair, compassionate, and civil.

This leads us to the two rules of understanding liberals:

The first rule is:
What is projection?
Essentially, it is blaming someone else for what you’ve done.
Or, it is placing attributes of your own on someone else, for vicarious or nefarious reasons.
With the liberals, they project for one main reason:
They don’t know how to take blame or responsibility for their actions.

Often you will hear a liberal say, “This is the fault of the Republicans” without any reservation or compromise.
In fact, “compromise” to a liberal is when you move forward a step and they stay put – or even move a step back!
When you hesitate, they accuse you of “obstruction” or “xenophobia” or some other name-calling designed to confuse you.
Yes, they want you confused so they can continue on in their insanity.
Misery loves company.
Why should THEY stand in one place and take the blame for what they’ve done when they have YOU to drag into it?
Better yet, drag you in, throw mud at you, and walk away with a smug look, as you stammer and sputter.

Sound familiar?
It should be.
It is an old tactic used by one sibling to blame the other sibling, to avoid punishment of any kind.
People who commit crimes, and who hurt people willingly, use this tactic also.
They justify their actions by saying the other person deserved it.
“If only you hadn’t done such-and-such, I wouldn’t have done these things.”

There is no confession from a liberal, and no responsibility taken.
They will blame everything except themselves.
If they blamed themselves, they would have to change.
Why would liberals NOT want to change?
A few reasons.
Mainly, however, they do not believe they are wrong about anything.
This is a psychosis which stems from their neurosis.
They believe they are better than you because they cannot admit they are wrong.
Megalomania is one of the outward symptoms of this psychosis.
They hold themselves up as the “only ones” who have done right, or who can fix things.
Another symptom of their psychosis is to attack, because it’s easier to cause more trouble than to fix the current trouble.

The second rule of understanding liberals is:
Communism famously cries, “Seize the means of production!”
This means, TAKE what has already been constructed from those who made it.
They want to seize from you and use this plunder to fund their utopian goals.
Consequently, liberals are notorious tax-and-spenders.
They see your labor as a cheese-pot from which they can ladle out goodies to others.
Many reasons:
(a) Their ideas are so pie-in-the-sky and horrible that they cannot be sufficiently funded voluntarily.
(b) They wish to corrupt a populace with the goodies, for dependency and to send votes in their direction.
(c) They LIKE the POWER of doing it.

Liberal TAKE ideas and destroy them.
They take inner cities and make them hellholes of poverty and crime.
They infuse money without accountability.
They deter police from doing their job.
They rabble-rouse the worst elements.

They also destroy ideas for fun.
Unlike conservatives, who honestly debate, a main goal of the liberal is to stop opposing views.
Because their views are generally unworkable, too costly, and many times insane.
Unlike conservatives, who will listen to reason concerning criticism, liberals do not.
They believe they are always right, remember?
If you try to work with their ideas, they accuse you of sabotage and obstructionism.
If their ideas fail, they accuse their opposition of RACISM, or rigging, to name two things.

Liberals also steal good ideas so they can claim these good and valid ideas as THEIRS.
They claim to have invented the public library, but this is not true.
They claim to have invented governmental charity or benefits, but this is not true.
If a liberal HAS invented something useful and affordable, it is rare.
And no, I will not “produce the evidence” because we ALREADY know this to be true and they will NEVER admit it to be true!

And, at heart, this is what hurts liberals the most.
They know we see them for what they are.
People who say one thing and do another.
People who say “trust us” and then betray that trust at the deepest levels.
People who say they are for good and right, and then indulge in the worst types of corruption and debasement.
People who say they will help and never harm, then turn around and claim their failures are the fault of others.

So if you debate a liberal, be aware that 99 times out of 100 you will not win in any permanent way.
You will not find common ground that does not disappear soon enough.
You will not find an ally you can trust, but rather a snake who will use your words and feelings against you.

Conservatives MUST understand that to trust a liberal is the same as putting your hand into an open flame.
You are deliberately and consciously asking to be burned.

What is the solution?
Essentially, conservatives must band together to defeat liberals ALWAYS.
They should be defeated at the polls and be withheld from public office as often as possible.
This means more passionate conservatives need to become active, and run for office.
Liberal voices must be kept to the outskirts, where they can offer their “ideas” from a safe distance.
Sensible conservative voices must drown out the utopian nonsense of the average liberal.
And forceful conservatives must learn to hit hard and not be too civil in discourse.
Weak discourse leads to liberals taking office!

This article is designed to be a short course in defending yourself from the mental and emotional harm in dealing with liberals.
I hope in that respect I’ve opened a few eyes and motivated a few conservatives to run for office.

Monday, March 6, 2017

Iran, Russia, and Fake News

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 has this 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 don't hear about it. Chechnya, which is Sunni by 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 don't 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'll have more flexibility after the election"? The uproar on the Right was severe, yet the Democrats hardly blinked. Naturally, the Dems 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's 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 is not yet 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 upending 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's 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? Or 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.