Let’s take a look at an article I recently came across, as well as the author of that article.

According to Dion Rabouin, a financial markets reporter for Yahoo Finance, “A Trump trade war victory over China could be disastrous for the US.”

“Disastrous” is strong language.  It’s always good to consider “the source” when we are determining how much credibility and value we should give a story.

According to his Yahoo bio, “Dion Rabouin covers markets for Yahoo Finance, including bonds, equities and currencies.  He previously covered Treasuries, FX and emerging markets for Reuters.  He is not a business man; he’s a business, man.”

So, Yahoo doesn’t list any experience or qualifications to cover financial related topics…, just that he has covered them.  Yahoo even goes out of their way to say Mr. Rabouin isn’t a “business man,” but that “he’s a business, man.”  I’m not sure what that is supposed to mean, except I guess it’s supposed to be cute or funny in some way, which it isn’t in my opinion.

His “LinkedIn” profile says, “Dion Rabouin is a multi-platform, award-winning journalist with years of experience as a writer, reporter and editor.  His work has appeared in publications including ESPN.com, The Hollywood Reporter, Huffington Post, The New York Times, Newsweek, Reuters and The Root.  Additionally, he has been a contributor for television news networks including the BBC, NBC, PBS, ReutersTV and Yahoo! Global News with Katie Couric.  He also has served as a news reporter and contributor for AM, FM and satellite radio programs across the country.  Throughout his career he has covered everything from sports and entertainment to business and politics, writing breaking news and in-depth features.”

There’s nothing here that really shouts out “competent” to me either.  ESPN?  The Hollywood Reporter?  The Huff Post?  The (failing) New York Times?  WeakNews…, I mean Newsweek?

Then we have references to BBC, NBC and PBS.  All proud members of the biased mainstream media, to be sure.  Oh, but he did do something with Katie Couric.  I’m sorry, but I wouldn’t have even put that on there if I was you.

So, there you have Mr. Dion Rabouin, “an award winning journalist” (Just to let you know, virtually every “journalist” can claim to be some kind of “award winner.) who really isn’t imparting any kind of information based on education, experience or inside information.  This is just the opinion of, and probably not even the original opinion of, some “writer.”

Ok, well let’s proceed from that standpoint.

Mr. Rabouin begins by saying, “U.S. President Donald Trump appears to be winning the trade war.  (Winning is good right?)  China is reeling from the effects of trade tariffs imposed by the United States and may be facing a major slowdown in its growth that could be worsened by additional tariffs, analysts say.”  (Yes, tariffs usually do slowdown growth.  Boy, these analysts are good!  We only have to look at how China’s tariffs against us slowed our growth down!  Funny, but I don’t remember hearing any complaining about how our growth would be slowed at the time though.)

“China’s rock solid economy has already started showing cracks.  (Uh, ya, “rock solid” thanks to ripping off the U.S., to the tune of over $500 billion a year.  Not to mention all of the theft of our intellectual property!)  Growth in its manufacturing sector has slowed, its stock market has tumbled and the country has faced ‘extremely complicated and severe’ domestic and external conditions in the first half of the year, statistics authority spokesman Mao Shengyong said in a statement earlier this month.  The country’s political leaders are also trying to roll back massive credit and debt expansion.”

“But that’s not just bad news for China.  It could also spell disaster for American workers, U.S.-based companies and economies around the world.”  (Like we all had it so good when we were getting taken advantage of with these unfair trade tariffs and all of our jobs were going overseas.)

“James Barrineau, head of emerging markets debt at Schroders, argues that a slowdown in China carries global contagion risks.  China is not only the world’s second largest economy, and the world’s largest measured by purchasing power parity, it’s also a top trading partner with almost every country on the planet and a major focus of U.S. policy making.”

“‘If the market were to conclude that trade wars were causing significant stress in an economy of that size I think risk appetite globally would dry up pretty quickly,’ Barrineau told Yahoo Finance in a phone interview.  ‘The U.S. is ‘especially vulnerable.’”

(News flash…, Mr. Barrineau is an investment management parasite who doesn’t care about U.S. jobs, or even Americans in general.  He’s interested in making money for himself.  Period.)

“That would be a major risk to U.S. markets, particularly stocks and other financial assets, as the benchmark S&P 500 index already is trading at historically high levels.  Further, because Trump has antagonized and threatened tariffs not just on China but the European Union, Japan, Canada, Mexico and many of the world’s largest economies, the United States would be hit harder than other nations, the International Monetary Fund said last week.”

(How can we be “hit” harder than we have been getting “hit” over the last 30 years or more?  The U.S. has been taken advantage of by virtually every country on earth, regarding unfair trade, unfair taxes, and the mass appropriation of our jobs and industries.)

“Liz Young, senior investment strategist at BNY Mellon Investment Management North America, says that there are more ‘hidden risks’ than possible benefits for the United States and the rest of the world ‘if things start to really blow up in China with the trade war.’”

(Excuse me Ms. Young if I don’t shed a tear for China.  Somehow I don’t think anyone in China was crying over us.)

“Anti-American sentiment in China could mean significantly reduced sales for these companies, which represent a major share of the U.S. stock market, potentially leading to a drop in stock prices and a bear market or a recession.”

(Here we go again with the “anti-American sentiment.”  Can we just leave “sentiment” out of the equation?  We’re talking about business here after all.  It sounds reminiscent of the liberal belief that we shouldn’t fight terrorism because it would incite more people to become terrorists.  Flawed thinking appears to just promote more flawed thinking.)

“Seeking to get out ahead of these negative effects, companies would likely move more operations to China, Zhang said.  More companies moving to China or to other countries outside the United States that aren’t involved in a trade war likely means more job losses in the U.S.”

(Wow, that is quite a stretch!  I’m having a hard time imagining a parade of companies abandoning the U.S. to relocate to China right now, or in the near future.  Especially if President Trump penalizes U.S. companies for leaving the country.)

“Trade statistics often distort the global economic reality today,” Zhang told Yahoo Finance in an email following a meeting in Manhattan. “As China has become the most important overseas market for many American firms setting up operations there … such distortion of the trade reality becomes even more severe.”

(I feel the biggest “distortions” we have to fear are the distortions and misinformation masquerading as knowledgeable analysis and unbiased opinion.)

Stay thirsty my friends!  But remember, don’t drink the Kool-Aide.  The truth is out there!

Winning!

Did Obama, Brennan And Clinton illegally collude to take President Trump down?

According to an “Investor’s Business Daily” editorial, “The saying goes, a fish rots from the head down.  Well, so do bad governments (and bad actors).  Recent revelations about the behavior of President Obama and his CIA director John Brennan in pushing the bogus Russian collusion investigation suggest that’s been the case.”

“The release of the FISA application by the FBI to investigate alleged collusion between Russia and President Trump’s campaign and recent comments made by top officials are eye opening.  Not only did President Obama know about the investigation, he seems to have pushed it from the very beginning.”

On top of that, here’s what Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper: “If it weren’t for President Obama we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that set up a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today, including Special Counsel (Robert) Mueller’s investigation.  President Obama is responsible for that.  It was he who tasked us to do that intelligence community assessment in the first place.”

“Why didn’t this get more attention in the media?

(You’re not really asking that question are you?)

Obama and Brennan not only knew the dubious nature of the allegations against Trump, but pushed them anyway.”

As Kimberley Strassel wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Brennan in particular has revealed himself to be a total anti-Trump partisan to an extent that’s shocking for a public official.  His animus is raw and deep, as his actions suggest.  The record shows he (Brennan) went on to use his position, as head of the most powerful spy agency in the world, to assist Hillary Clinton’s campaign (and to keep his job).”

“Investor’s Business Daily” then went on to say, “Brennan’s manic partisanship could be seen last week in an over-the-top, bizarrely unhinged tweet following Trump’s press conference after his mini-summit with Vladimir Putin.  Brennan called Trump’s remarks ‘nothing short of treasonous’ and said they exceeded the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.'”

(Mr. Brennan…you, as they say, should know.)

“While Brennan’s hate for the GOP nominee may be public now, it wasn’t in the summer of 2016.  Not only did Brennan share intelligence with the FBI, but soon after, the Democrat-linked opposition research firm Fusion GPS began leaking the “Trump Dossier” to the media. The fix, as they say, was in.”

“What’s stunning is the casual way Clapper let us know that President Obama “was responsible” for the whole shebang.  If that’s so, there are really only two possibilities:

One, that a gullible Obama was fed phony information from Brennan and the Hillary Clinton campaign.  He then over-reacted by tasking the intelligence community to look into it…

Or, two, that Obama knew he was dealing with tainted information. Instead of halting a bogus investigation, he let Brennan carry it forward. Why? He thought it would help elect Hillary Clinton, and cement his own presidential legacy for posterity.

At a minimum, what seems obvious is that the deep state triad of Obama, Clinton and Brennan colluded. They did it to damage Trump’s campaign with allegations of Russian interference in the election.  And they got the FBI and, later, a special prosecutor, to conduct a high-profile investigation.”

(Instead of investigating President Trump, shouldn’t we be investigating those who subverted our democracy for their own purposes and to influence a presidential election?  That would be O-B-C.)

“Removing security clearances for those in the Obama administration who lied or were guilty of misconduct and political bias would be a minimum. These crimes, if real, are bigger than Watergate.”

“The only real question is whether our justice system is too compromised to bring those who committed real crimes, not imaginary ones, to justice. And whether our equally compromised and biased media are capable of reporting it.”

(Uh, that would be a big “no” followed by another big “no.”)

When it came to the mainstream media reporting about President Obama, everything was put in the most positive light and from the best perspective. Anything negative or controversial was usually ignored or downplayed.

When it comes to the mainstream media reporting about President Trump, everything is put in the worst possible light and from the worst possible perspective. Anything negative is amplified and anything positive is downplayed or ignored.

Here’s a recent headline that is a good example: “The Trump economy might be peaking.”

It “might be peaking,” huh?

Then again, it might not be.

Anything “might” be doing anything at any given time, right?  It’s just a choice of how you want something to appear.

In Obama’s case, the headline would probably have read: “Obama’s economy continues to climb!”

See what I mean?  You can literally find numerous examples of this day in and day out.

This is how the biased media misrepresents what’s going on in many cases.

The real problem that we’ve come to learn is that the slant of these stories is not just the result of bias surfacing unconsciously.  They are, in a lot of cases, the result of a biased individual intentionally slanting an article one way or another.  This is definitely a much more concerning matter.

An unconscious display of favoritism is just a biased view manifesting itself without any real malice or premeditation.

A conscious display of this type of manipulation is called propaganda, however, and using propaganda in an effort to sway the beliefs of the people in one way or another, in order to promote their ideology, has a much more sinister intention.

The good news is many of us recognize this, and take it into consideration when listening to, watching or reading these reports.

The bad news is, many of our fellow Americans retain an inherited or an assumed trust of the mainstream media, and they fall prey to their attempts at shaping the national narrative and the “news” in general.

This has become a never ending battle.  “The swamp” and the biased mainstream media (fake news) never take a day off.  It’s a constant drumbeat of misinformation that can start to take root if you’re not careful.

Thanks to the 2016 election, we got a clear picture of who is on whose side.

On one side we have “the swamp (which includes the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, et al),” or “the deep state,” the democrats, liberals, socialists, communists (not to be redundant), the entertainment world, the establishment republicans, money grubbing interests from around the world and the biased mainstream media.

On the other side we have President Trump, independent republicans, Americans that love their country and the few media outlets that practice true journalism, which are interested in reporting the truth and which work to keep the propagandist biased mainstream media at bay.

As you can see, the opposition to truth, justice and the American way is quite formidable.

Whose side are you on?

According to Katrina Filippidis, Via The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal, “Three top FBI officials quit as US cybersecurity threats mount.  The mass exodus has been labeled ‘highly unusual.’”

She goes on to say that, “Looming cybersecurity threats are reportedly behind the departure of several cybersecurity officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  According to The Wall Street Journal, three of the top FBI officials, Scott Smith, David Resch, and Carl Ghattas, are exiting the bureau.”

(Now we have to ask ourselves the questions: What are these “looming” cybersecurity threats?  Aren’t there always looming cybersecurity threats?  Isn’t that why we have these cybersecurity officials in the first place?  Why would looming threats be the reason for their leaving the FBI?)

(Translation:  Congressional investigations about the 2016 election and all of the cybersecurity issues are starting to get close to us, and we are going to bail before we are impelled to testify or forced to resign.)

“The resignations come amidst an ‘unprecedented’ number of cyberattacks, which apparently include Russian meddling in the political system, as well as disputes with President Trump.  Last year, the US President took a swipe at the FBI’s reputation on social media, calling it ‘the worst in history.’”

(Translation:  We have to make this sound really good by saying there were an “unprecedented number” of cyberattacks, which no one can either verify or question, and of course they “apparently” include “Russian meddling” and President Trump.  How convenient, and they’re also promoting the liberal narrative!  They get extra “swamp” points for that!)

“Assistant FBI director Scott Smith is set to resign this month, and will be joined by David Resch, the FBI’s executive assistant director of the cyber, response and services office.  Meanwhile, the national security branch of the FBI will lose Carl Ghattas, also an executive assistant director, as he pursues other opportunities in the private sector.  All of the departures have been confirmed by the FBI.”

“In a statement, Resch assured the public that “the Bureau will remain the FBI the American people have depended on for 110 years.”  Those familiar with the decisions have labelled the mass exodus of senior officials as “highly unusual,” particularly in the case of Smith, whose premature departure diverges from the standard practice of agents leaving after retirement age.”

(I feel soooo much better now with the reassurances given by of Mr. Resch.  Translation: Even though we have to bail, don’t worry, the “swamp” is alive and well within the FBI.)

“With the shadow of the 2016 election hacking still lingering, and concerns with present cybersecurity issues, senior US intelligence officials have cautioned the country has reached a “critical point.”

(Yes, we’ve reached a “critical point” alright.  Hopefully we’re all about to learn how slimy and corrupt the FBI has been under the Obama administration, and even up till now, trying to disrupt and impede President Trump and his administration.)

Remember, stay thirsty my friends, but don’t drink the Kool-Aide!

Listen up Mr. Rosenstein, Mr. Stzrok, Ms. Paige, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Wray, Mr. Coats; YOU ARE THE HIRED HELP.  Nobody elected you to your current positions in our government.  You were either hired or appointed, which means you can be, and in most cases should be, fired.

Mr. McCabe. Mr. Comey, Mr. Brennan and Mr. Clapper; you gentlemen were either fired or resigned because you were about to be fired.  You were fired because you dishonored yourself and your agency.  We really don’t care what you think or what you have to say about our country or the people that still have their jobs in our government.

When any of you people disrespect, look down upon or ignore the people we elected to represent us, you are disrespecting, looking down upon or ignoring us, We the People.

The President and Congress, who were elected by We the People are your bosses.  Not the other way around.

First of all, you should obey our country’s laws.  You are not above the laws of the land just because you enforce the laws of the land.  If you break our laws, you should be fired, punished or both.

When the people we elected ask you for answers to questions, you give them the answers, or you should be fired.

When the people we elected ask you for documents, emails or texts, you give them the documents, emails or texts, or you should be fired.

When the people we elected ask you for documents, emails or texts, and you redact them to the point of being meaningless because you say you are protecting “classified material,” We the People understand that you are only protecting your asses.  I’m just sayin’, we get it, you’re not fooling anybody, and you should be fired.

Are you starting to get the idea about where you stand in OUR government?

You should have loyalty to NO other person, persons, or organization other than our elected officials and the American people.

I get the impression from some of you that you feel you are “patriotic” somehow when you obstruct and disrespect our duly elected officials.  Let’s be clear…, you are not patriotic at all in these cases…, you are disgraceful and in many cases treasonous.

“The swamp,” “the deep state,” or whatever you want to call it, can no longer be allowed to co-opt our elected government and the government as laid out in our Constitution.

Whoopi Goldberg, who invited Judge Jeanine Pirro onto her show (“The View,” which should be call “The Liberal View”) by the way, got into a back and forth debate with Judge Jeanine, couldn’t handle it, and then basically kicked the judge off the show! Typical liberal response.  When you’re losing the game you just pick up your ball and go home.  Way to go Whoopi.

Oh, and yeah, like the picture says, why are you still here anyway WHOOP!?  Just another liar I guess, shooting her mouth off, just trying to sound big, with no real intentions of honoring her word.  Typical liberal…, but I digress.

According to Taryn Ryder of Yahoo News, “The Fox News host stopped by (Again, she was invited…, she didn’t just ‘stop by’ anything.) to promote her new book, “Liars, Leakers, and Liberals: The Case Against the Anti-Trump Conspiracy.”  The fireworks started when Pirro mentioned “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and appeared to point at Goldberg.”

“’Did you just point at me?’ Goldberg asked. ‘Listen, I don’t have Trump derangement, let me tell you what I have.  I’m tired of people starting a conversation with ‘Mexicans are liars and rapists’ (which is a twisted liberal version of what has been said by the way), … Listen, I’m 62 years old, there have been a lot of people in office that I didn’t agree with, but I have never, ever seen anything like this.  I’ve never seen anybody whip up such hate. I’ve never seen anybody be so dismissive … What I suffer from is the inability to figure out how to fix this. That’s my issue.’”

(Whoopi’s inability to figure ANYTHING out does not surprise me a bit.  Continue…)

“Goldberg then attempted to bring the discussion back to Pirro’s views, asking her about the ‘deep state.’”

“‘How long has the deep state been there and who’s running it?’ The View host asked. But Pirro didn’t answer. The two got into a she-said, she-said spat before the Fox pundit shouted, ‘Whoopi, you know what’s horrible?  When people who shouldn’t be here end up murdering the children of American citizens.’

“‘You know what’s horrible?  When the President of the United States whips up people to beat the hell out of people!’ Goldberg replied as the two continued to talk over each other.”

(Excuse me Ms. Whoopi…, did I hear you right?  WHO is inciting people to beat the hell out of other people?  I really don’t recall anyone saying anyone should “go beat the hell” out of someone, but I do recall some people inciting others to harass and confront other people publicly.  And I believe that would be YOUR democrat and liberal friends.  Especially Maxine “The Drip” Waters!)

“But Goldberg was fed up. ‘Say goodbye!’ she yelled to Pirro. ‘Bye. I’m done.’”

“Pirro can be heard saying ‘wow’ as the camera cut to a commercial break.”

“When the show returned, sans the ‘Justice with Judge Jeanine’ host, Goldberg explained her actions.”

“‘Welcome back. So, you saw me do something I very rarely do. I very rarely lose my cool and I’m not proud of it, I don’t like it,’ she said to the camera. ‘But (There’s the big “BUT”) I also don’t like being accused (Note: it’s not an accusation if we all witnessed live.) of being hysterical because that’s one of the things I try not to be on this show. So … have a great day.’”

(Oh, no Whoopi, you’re never hysterical at all!  You “rarely get hysterical…oh, not at all.  Ok I guess, if you say so!)

“The drama continued when the cameras stopped rolling. Pirro called into Sean Hannity’s radio show to talk about the incident.”

“‘When I went off the stage, Sean, I’m walking downstairs and I said something like, ‘Whoopi, I fought for victims my whole life,’ and she came at me as I was leaving and she said ‘F you’ in my face, literally spitting at me, ‘F you, get the F out of this building,’ Pirro said. ‘And I said to her, ‘did you just say that?’ She said, ‘that’s what I said, get the F out of this building’ and she was screaming at me, and I’m walking out of the building like a dog who was just kicked off.  So forget about what she did to me on set, which was horrific in itself, but the treatment by Whoopi Goldberg is typical of what is going on in this country. The left, they invite you on to talk, they then won’t let you talk, they throw you off the show and then they throw you out of the building.  And here’s the problem, Sean: The problem is once one starts doing it, the rest of them are going to start doing it.’”

“‘These people, on the left, and I said it in the first segment, Sean, and again I have to look at it, I said ‘we need to start talking about this stuff. You know, we need to start recognizing that it doesn’t matter if it’s Donald Trump or if it’s a Democrat running.  We’ve got to have a Department of Justice and FBI that is not corrupt…. I’ll tell you, Sean, I’ve been a prosecutor, a judge for 30 years.  I’ve sat on murder trials, I’d go toe-to-toe with anyone.  I’ve tried murder cases, I’ve gone against drug cartels… I have never been treated like that in my life.  I was stunned.’”

(I can picture the “damage control” meetings taking place even now!)

Goldberg’s reps did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Really…, that’s odd.  Well in all honesty, it does take a little while to come up with an alternative view of reality sometimes.  Just give them a little time.  I’m sure Whoopi and the “whoopettes” will come up with something that’ll justify the dropping of all of those “F” bombs.

No, no, no, they’re calling him a MISOGYNIST.  According to the dictionary, “A misogynist is a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.  A woman-hater.”

“Misogynist” comes right after “racist” for the word most thrown around by clueless liberals desperately trying to discredit President Trump.

Take a look into the crowds of any one of these “spontaneous” protests (about as “spontaneous” as the “spontaneous” attack on our diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya) and you’ll see plenty of signs that have the word “misogynist” scrawled on them.

President Trump may be a lot of things, but a “woman-hater” would not be one of them in my estimation.

Emily Dreyfuss at WIRED/Business wrote an article titled: “WANT TO MAKE A LIE SEEM TRUE? SAY IT AGAIN. AND AGAIN. AND AGAIN.”

It’s kind of funny, because at the time, February of 2017, she was trying to make this case AGAINST President Trump, in some sort of effort to explain Hillary’s shocking loss. As time has gone on now, however, I feel her article makes a good case against liberals, democrats, and the biased mainstream media, in regards to President Trump.

According to Ms. Dreyfuss, “YOU ONLY USE 10 PERCENT OF YOUR BRAIN. Eating carrots improves your eyesight. Vitamin C cures the common cold, and Crime in the United States is at an all-time high.”

None of those things are true.

“But the facts don’t actually matter: People repeat them so often that you believe them. Welcome to the “illusory truth effect,” a glitch in the human psyche that equates repetition with truth. Marketers and politicians are masters of manipulating this particular cognitive bias, which perhaps you have become more familiar with lately.”

“So what’s going on here? ‘Repetition makes things seem more plausible,’ says Lynn Hasher, a psychologist at the University of Toronto whose research team first noticed the effect in the 1970s.”

“Repetition is what makes fake news work, too, as researchers at Central Washington University pointed out in a study way back in 2012 before the term was everywhere.  It’s also a staple of political propaganda.  It’s why flacks (publicity agents) feed politicians and CEOs sound bites that they can say over and over again. Not to go all Godwin’s Law on you, but even Adolf Hitler knew about the technique. ‘Slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea,’ he wrote in ‘Mein Kampf.’ (his autobiography, when translated means “My Fight’).”

“The effect works because when people attempt to assess truth they rely on two things: whether the information jibes with their understanding, and whether it feels familiar. The first condition is logical: People compare new information with what they already know to be true and consider the credibility of both sources. But researchers have found that familiarity can ‘trump’ rationality, so much so, that hearing over and over again that a certain fact is wrong can have a paradoxical effect. It’s so familiar that it starts to feel right.”

“AS WITH ANY COGNITIVE BIAS, THE BEST WAY NOT TO FALL PREY TO IT IS TO KNOW IT EXISTS.”

It’s true, Mr. President, but it’s not really a “syndrome” in a lot of cases.  In many cases it’s a “Trump derangement conspiracy,” or a “Trump derangement effort.”  It is only the truly clueless among the liberal population who may have the “syndrome.”

According to Dylan Stableford of Yahoo News, “Facing continued backlash over his comments at his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and his attempt to clarify them, President Trump on Wednesday accused his critics of being ‘haters’ who wanted to see his diplomatic efforts fail.”

“Some people HATE the fact that I got along well with President Putin of Russia,” Trump tweeted. “They would rather go to war than see this. It’s called Trump Derangement Syndrome!”

Senator Rand Paul, of Kentucky, tended to agree with him, who expressed support for Trump’s embrace of Putin while dismissing his many critics, “I think there’s a bit of Trump derangement syndrome,” Paul said on CNN Monday. “It is a good idea to have engagement … but these people hate Trump so much, all of that is being lost.”

Senator John McCain, our favorite RINO (Republican In Name Only) from Arizona was all in a tizzy, of course, because President Trump dared to imply anything but the greatest of respect for the slimy “swamp” monsters at the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and whatever other three letter acronym agency you can come up with.

“At the White House Tuesday, President Trump claimed that he misspoke (an excuse claimed by democrats on a regular basis and something liberals are only allowed to claim apparently) that he meant to say the opposite of what he said. “I said the word ‘would’ instead of ‘wouldn’t,’” the president explained while reading from prepared remarks. ‘The sentence should have been, ‘I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia,’ sort of a double negative. So you can put that in and I think that probably clarifies things pretty good.’”

“On Wednesday, the president claimed on Twitter that ‘so many’ top intelligence officials ‘loved’ his diplomatic turn in Finland.”

“So many people at the higher ends of intelligence loved my press conference performance in Helsinki,” Trump tweeted. “Putin and I discussed many important subjects at our earlier meeting. We got along well which truly bothered many haters who wanted to see a boxing match. Big results will come!”

Also according to Yahoo News, “President Trump insisted the summit with Putin ‘may prove to be, in the long run, an even greater success’ than his efforts last week at North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s annual summit in Brussels, where he accused Germany of being held ‘captive’ by Russia and decried U.S. allies for not contributing more to military spending.”

“According to President Trump, Russia ‘has agreed to help with North Korea, where relationships with us are very good and the process is moving along.’”

“The meeting between President Putin and myself was a great success, except in the Fake News Media!” the president tweeted.

Those of us unaffected by a certain “syndrome” do believe you and believe in you Mr. President.  You have our trust, and we think you’re doing a great job!

Was there really ever a devastating worldwide flood in the history of the world?  If there was, it would explain a lot of things in the big picture of life here on earth.  Let’s take a look at some of the evidence, some of the possibilities, and my own beliefs and theories.

“The Great Flood,” referred to here, is the most catastrophic flood and the most catastrophic geological event that has ever taken place in human history.

Virtually nothing historical, from writings to civilization to long-living organisms like trees, has survived from before about 3,000 or 3,300 B.C., when “The Great Flood” would have occurred.

Today at least 43% of Americans accept as truth the Biblical account of “The Great Flood,” and many cultures around the world recognize a world-destroying flood in their oral or written histories.

“Among many geologists, the concept of a catastrophic flood came to be universally accepted by the late 1950s,” after a discovery in the American Northwest of “giant ripple marks, 50 feet high and 200-500 feet apart.” This evidence of a massive flood in the Northwest suggests that “The Great Flood” was not merely a local flood in the Middle East, as many scientists would have us believe.

The mission for many scientists is to minimalize and delegitimize some of these stories from The Bible, and discredit any scientist who would consider them even possible.  They view The Bible as a threat to their own importance, their standing in society, and to their overall ideology of Macro-evolution, in which “millions and millions of years” of time helps to explain anything.

To state the case from The Bible, we need to go back to the beginning.  I mean the very beginning!

Starting in the sixth verse, from the first book of The Bible, the book of Genesis, it says, “And God said, ‘let there be a firmament, an expanse of sky, in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters below from the waters above.’”

Another translation of the same verses from The Bible reads, “And God said, ‘let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”  So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.  God called the vault “the sky.”

This concept of a layer of water above the atmosphere, and surrounding the earth, is not one that gets talked about much by theologians or scientists, but it’s an important part of the overall picture, in my view.

This scenario basically turns the earth into one big type of hyperbaric chamber.  In a hyperbaric chamber, the air pressure is increased, compared to normal air pressure. Under these conditions, your lungs can gather more oxygen than would be possible breathing oxygen at normal air pressure.  This “water canopy” effectively would have cut out harmful radiation, and the pressure, temperature, oxygen and carbon dioxide levels were much higher.

These conditions would then help to explain the existence of dinosaurs and plant life that were larger in size, as a result of the increased oxygen capacity.  It would also help to explain why these types of organisms ceased to exist after “The Great Flood.”

Another piece of evidence in support of a worldwide flood, “The Great Flood,” are the many stories that exist among societies all over the world. These stories describe a world-destroying flood, and it seems unlikely that this similarity is accidental.  Dr. John Morris wrote regarding the history of the biblical flood:

Over the years, more than 200 of these stories have been collected from cultures all around the world.

The following is additional evidence of a Worldwide Flood.  This type of evidence is found in numerous places and on virtually every Continent.

Polystrate Fossils:
One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what are termed “polystrate fossils.”  Such fossils are found all over the world, especially in and around coal deposits.  They are often in the form of fossil trees that were buried standing upright and which often cross multiple layers of strata such as sandstone, shale, limestone and even coal beds.  They range in size from smaller saplings to trees over 80 feet long.

The Fossils Themselves:
Fossils don’t form on lake bottoms today, nor are they found forming on the bottom of the sea.  Instead, they normally only form when a plant or animal is buried soon after it dies.  Therefore, the fossils themselves are evidence of a catastrophic flood that took place in the past.

We also know that the Grand Canyon was once under ocean water because of the marine fossils that have been found there.

Evolutionists believe that the fossil layers we see now were deposited slowly over millions and millions of years.  A growing number of geologists see problems with such interpretations.  First because there is virtually no evidence of erosion between the layers, and second, because of the sheer size of the layers.  This, coupled with the presence of marine fossils that are buried in many of the layers, tells us that they were deposited by ocean currents and by a flood like nothing we have seen in modern times.

A Whale of a Fossil:
Or should we say “a fossil of a whale?  It’s true, but what is most interesting about it is how it was buried.  In 1976, workers found the remains of a baleen whale entombed vertically in a quarry.

“They’ve found fossils there before; in fact the machinery operators have learned a good deal about them and carefully document any they find with the name of the collector, the date, and the exact place found. This Whale, however, is one of the largest fossils ever collected anywhere… It is standing on end… and is being exposed gradually as the diatomite is mined. Only the head and a small part of the body are visible as yet.

The modern baleen whale is 80 to 90 feet long and has a head of similar size, indicating that the fossil may be close to 80 feet long.  How many whales do you figure died standing up on their tails?  I would say that seems a bit “fishy” to me, but whales are mammals.

Marine Fossils in The Mountains:
In Mountains all over the world one can find sea shells and other marine fossils.  These include the Sierras, the Swiss Alps, the Himalayas and many more.  How did they get there if not for an enormous flood?    

Also, and most importantly, regarding fossil fuels:

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, “Fossil energy sources, including oil (formed from animals), coal (formed from plants) and natural gas, are non-renewable resources that formed when prehistoric plants and animals died and were gradually buried by layers of rock. Over millions of years, different types of fossil fuels formed, depending on what combination of organic matter was present, how long it was buried and what temperature and pressure conditions existed as time passed.”

Ok, here are my questions:

Regarding coal deposits, has anybody ever seen a forest buried under layers of dirt, mud, or rock without a flood being in the picture?  Can you even imagine how a forest would be “buried” without a flood playing a role?

Regarding these giant oil deposits, how long do you think it would take an animal to be buried by dirt, mud, or rock after it died?  What would be left of that animal by the time it got buried?  How would enough animals all die together in one place, and be buried fast enough, to form a giant oil field today?

It is my belief that “The Great Flood” killed massive herds of animals (and people), and washed their bodies into low-lying areas.  They all collected there and were buried there.  And it is there they decayed, over time (“millions of years” not required), forming the oil deposits we see today.

I admit that I am no scientist, and that there is much more I don’t know than what I do know, but my theory regarding fossil fuels not only makes a lot more sense, but is conceivable at least.  The existing, and commonly accepted, method by which fossil fuels were created does not even seem feasible to me.  Am I that off base?  If I am, I’m really missing something here.

Anthropologists will tell you that a myth is often the faded memory of a real event.  Details may have been added, lost, or changed in the telling and retelling, but the essence of truth remains.  When many separate cultures have the same “myth” in their “folklore,” their ancestors must have either experienced the same event, or they were both descended from a common ancestral source which itself experienced the event.

The only credible way to understand the widespread, similar flood legends is to recognize that all people living today, even though separated geographically and culturally, have descended from the few real people who survived a real global flood, on a real boat which eventually landed on a real mountain. Their descendants now fill the globe, never to forget the real event.

Please let me know what you think about all of this!

Our collection of “pots” in this case would include former CIA Director John Brennan, Senator John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Senator Upchuck Schumer, all of the rest of the democrats, and our usual cast of “swampy” republicans.

They are claiming President Trump’s comments regarding the U.S. Intelligence Services and Vladimir Putin and Russia are “treasonous,” “disgraceful” and “shameful,” among other things.

All I can say is they should all be familiar with that type of behavior.  They complain about what President Trump SAYS, while they were, and are, actually DOING this other disgraceful stuff.

Gee…, I wonder why The President would be leery of trusting our wonderful “Intelligence” Agencies, like the CIA and the FBI?

Could it be that THEY were caught spying on him and his campaign?!

Could it be that members of these agencies openly texted and emailed their disdain for him and their “plans” to either keep him out of office or disrupt him while in office?!

Could it be the stonewalling of Congress by the FBI and the DOJ when it comes to getting at the truth by redacting and withholding documents, while just plain refusing to answer other questions?!

Could it be that investigators continually refuse to acknowledge any involvement in tampering with the 2016 election by the DNC, the Clinton campaign, the Obama administration, or the FBI, while they continue a witch hunt against President Trump based on zero evidence?!

Could that be why The President may think twice regarding these organization?

I’m sorry FBI, CIA, etc…but you have very little credibility right now in the eyes of many millions of Americans, including this American.

Senator Rand Paul was one of the few politicians who “got” where The President was coming from, regarding his comments with President Putin.  Senator Rand Paul told CNN, “… the conversation around Russian interference in the 2016 US election and President Donald Trump’s break with the intelligence community on the issue was misdirected and animated by anti-Trump animus.  Any country that can spy does, and any country that can meddle in foreign elections does.”

He continued, “All countries are doing this, but we’ve elevated this to a higher degree, and we’ve made this all about the sour grapes of Hillary Clinton losing the election, and it’s all about partisan politics now.  This is truly the Trump derangement syndrome that motivates all of this.”

The truth is, the “swamp” was going to ridicule President Trump no matter what he said with Vladimir Putin.  The “swamp” is in full attack mode of President Trump while they are simultaneously “circling the wagons” around the FBI and the former Obama administration.

The truth is also that President Trump’s supporters realize all of this and the like how he called out our “Intelligence” Agencies.

All of these “swampy” FBI, CIA and DOJ people need to remember that THEY WERE NOT ELECTED.  They were hired, they are not above the law and they need to realize that they are answerable to our elected representatives in Congress, as well as The President.