Barack Obama And An Important Joe Biden Question

There's no getting around the fact that Americans hated George Bush Jr. He was the president who got in due to the election controversy in Florida in 2000. He was the president when 9/11 took place, and many red flags were raised during that time. He was the president who was in charge when airport security tightened up and allowed us to be groped and probed in order to get on our flights. Yet, he still got reelected four years later. People were fed up by the time his administration came to an end.

People were waking up to the same families being in charge. Whether it was the Bush family or the potential we faced in 2008 of Hillary Clinton getting in after her husband had been president through most of the 1990s. People were hopeful of some change in the White House, and suddenly it appeared. His name was Barack Obama, and it was interesting that he spoke of hope and change. He had that catch phrase that he used, "Yes we can."

Who was this guy? That was part of the appeal of Obama. He wasn't part of the known establishment, or so it seemed. His speeches were captivating, and people practically tripped over themselves to go see him speak. His rallies were huge. In fact, Barack Obama merchandise was a big seller leading up to the 2008 election. Even people who were right of center got on the Obama bandwagon, and the results were impressive. He had over 69 million votes as he was elected president.

People are going to debate Obama's legacy, but that's not really what this column is about. You can't deny his popularity in 2008. You can't deny that Obama was almost elevated to rock star status. The only presidential candidate we've seen since him to really inspire the people to turn out for speeches in record numbers is Donald Trump. When it comes to the idea that Barack Obama earned 69 million votes on his way to victory in 2008, even his detractors couldn't deny it. It was very obvious.

Let's move ahead 12 years to the 2020 elections, shall we? During the time of a pandemic, Joe Biden spent much of the election cycle in hiding. He didn't give many speeches, and his rallies didn't attract many people. Forget the notion that he was discouraging this. If the man who has been in politics for close to 50 years of his life were that inspiring, people would still show up to be a part of the excitement. They'd be there even if they couldn't hear him speak, just to say they were there during an historical presidential run. That didn't happen.

Compare Barack Obama and his popularity of 2008 to Joe Biden in 2020. We are supposed to believe that 21 million more people voted in this election than four years ago, which is a record. This is happening during a pandemic. We are further expected to believe that an uninspiring Joe Biden received nearly 11 million more votes than Obama did in 2008. His total is now at over 80 million votes, the most in presidential election history.

Forget the questions people are bringing up about anomalies on election night. Forget the talk about election machines being hacked. Forget the questions about voter mail in ballots. These are important discussions to be had, but for the purposes of this, just forget it. Forget what the media is telling you nonstop and forget the way social media is behaving at this time. 

There's only one question that needs to be asked here, and only you the reader can answer it. Does it seem plausible that Joe Biden received over 80 million votes in this election and nearly 11 million more votes than the immensely popular Barack Obama received back in 2008?

The USFL Brought Pro Football To The Spring

In the mid 1980's, the United States Football League (USFL) was founded to give fans football in the spring. The idea was that fans went through withdrawal after the NFL season was done, so why not start a league in the spring? It initially wasn't started as a league to compete with the established NFL.

Other leagues had tried to take on the NFL. The AAFC ended up merging three teams with the NFL in the 1950's. The AFL merged at the end of the 1960's after their team, the New York Jets, beat the NFL's Baltimore Colts in the third Super Bowl. The WFL folded after a couple seasons in the 1970's.

Though it wasn't started to compete with the NFL, there were problems early on when top college prospects were signed to USFL contracts. Then, some of the top NFL stars signed with the rival league. The USFL had a more party-like atmosphere, which made it more enjoyable for some fans.

Then, Donald Trump bought the New Jersey Generals and signed a couple big NFL stars. The team had already drafted Heisman Trophy winner Hershel Walker in their first year, and Walker went on to have a 2000 yard season.

But Trump had bigger ambitions. He wanted to take the league into the fall and winter and go head to head with the NFL. John Bassett, owner of the Tampa Bay Bandits, intended to keep his team in the Spring and planned to start a new league before selling his team when he began his battle with Cancer.

A few owners didn't like the winter idea, but others thought it was the only way to survive. The problem was that many of the league's franchises were also in NFL cities. Prior to what would have been the league's fourth season, they filed a lawsuit against the NFL on the grounds that they had established a monopoly.

The interesting thing is that the USFL actually won this lawsuit. The jury granted them the sum of $3.76 for their victory. This was a far cry from the millions Trump thought they would win. The league effectively ended with that outcome.

The Michigan Panthers gave the state their first pro football championship in several decades with a win over the Philadelphia Stars. The Stars franchise, which moved to Baltimore and was coached by Jim Mora, won the other two championships.

Several NFL Hall Of Famers, including Steve Young, Jim Kelly and Reggie White, played in the USFL. The league also adopted two point conversions and instant replays long before the NFL would use either. There was a plan to bring the league back, though nothing has come of it as of yet.

A Little Appreciation For The Band Men At Work

This band from Australia called Men At Work hit the scene in the early 1980's with an album called Business As Usual. Some of the songs were kind of silly, but they were catchy tunes. Who Can It Be Now and Land Down Under were being played everywhere. Be Good Johnny was another fun song from the album.

The band was so popular at that time that they ended up getting a Grammy nomination for Best New Artist. As luck would have it, they won. I'll never forget when lead singer Colin Hay, as part of the acceptance speech, said, "We are the men, and we'll see you again."

What's funny is this happened around the time of their second album, Cargo, but the band broke up after their third album. It was almost like Colin jinxed the guys from there on out, and it was really a shame. As pop rock bands go, these guys were good.

Their best songs may have been on Cargo with It's A Mistake and Overkill. Overkill isn't just my favorite song by these guys, but it's one of my favorite songs period. It's one of those songs that has something to say that many people can relate to.

Overkill is about the anxiety we all feel about life sometimes. We start worrying over things like bills, relationships and everything else. Will it be okay? Then, we get to the point where we can't even fall asleep because of the stress. The message of the song is that it will all be okay.

The band's third album, Two Hearts, was their last studio album before they broke up, but they managed to leave their mark on the industry. Land Down Under and Who Can It Be Now are still playing on the radio, and they have sold over 30 million records. There are many bands who only dream of that kind of success.

The Hughes Cut Of Planes, Trains And Automobiles Needs To Be Released

 

Back in August, it was announced that a reboot of John Hughes's Planes, Trains And Automobiles is in the works. The original starred the late John Candy and Steve Martin. The reboot is scheduled to star Will Smith and Kevin Hart. This is not a movie that really needs to be rebooted. The original is a Thanksgiving classic and one of the greatest holiday motion pictures of all time. There is a movie that probably should get released, and it's a version of Planes, Trains And Automobiles that we never got a chance to see.

The YouTube channel Hats Off Entertainment recently did a mini documentary showing this movie in a new light. Some people may have heard that the original script that John Hughes wrote would have made it a three-hour movie. What they may not be aware of is that much of that movie was actually shot and then edited at the studio's request. After Hughes edited it the first time, the studio requested he edit it one more time. He removed another 30 minutes from the run time, and the result was the movie we've all come to know and love.

However, there were whole scenes cut out of the movie, and some scenes that we did see were seriously edited. What Hats Off Entertainment showed us in their mini documentary were the little hints left in the movie that pointed to the movie we could have seen. For example, there was a side story regarding the Neal Page character, played by Martin. His wife believes he's having an affair. When we see the look of relief on her face in the movie, it gives us more context. She was relieved because she realizes her husband was telling her the truth the whole time

Several scenes played out longer than what we witnessed, including the airplane scene, the motel scene and when Paige and Del Griffith, played by Candy, are driving back to Chicago. In that scene, it's actually pointed out by the state trooper that they drove past Illinois and into Wisconsin. There's quite a bit to that scene that ended up on the cutting room floor. There's also the heart to heart talk between Page and Griffith near the end of the movie that was cut. It would be a slightly different movie than what we saw, but it would be interesting to movie buffs and fans of Martin and Candy.

Hats Off Entertainment suggested starting the social media hashtag #releasethehughescut. This would surely be a very popular director's cut. Hughes, who passed away in 2009, suggested that the film footage might have been lost or ruined. Is that the case? If anything could be cobbled together, it would certainly prove to be a hit with fans of the movie. The studio would probably make some money off of that DVD as well. That version of the movie would be far more interesting and entertaining than any reboot could be.

See the Planes, Trains And Automobiles mini documentary by Hats Off Entertainment HERE

The Media Has Done A Poor Job With Their Post-Election Coverage

After the media declared Joe Biden the President of the United States, they have buried any controversy regarding the election. The reports coming in from across the country were ignored. The irregularities in the way the election occurred have not been significantly discussed and explained. Social media got into the act. Anytime somebody challenges the election results or reports something on the matter, they tag that post by saying the claim has been disputed. However, they haven't significantly shown how it's been disputed.

In December, the electors will vote to determine who the President Elect officially is. Therefore, it doesn't really matter how many times Joe Biden comes out in front of a backdrop that proclaims him to be the President Elect. He's not officially the President Elect until the electors vote him in. This is being done for optics. The media and Biden know fully well that the election is being challenged. They also know that as one of the candidates in the election, current President Donald Trump is within his rights to do so.

The poor media coverage of this situation is part of the problem. The media and politicians talk about the divide in this country. We are a divided nation, and it didn't happen overnight. It's been building up for the past few years and can probably be traced back to when George Bush Jr was President. For the over 73 million people who voted for Trump, there are significant questions that the media won't even touch. Telling everybody that they need to unite behind Biden isn't going to do it without answering some of these questions. Secondly, telling these people that they are racists while telling them that everybody needs to unite will only keep the divide going.

The election night itself sets off so many red flags. Even without all of the evidence coming in, it still gives off the appearance of being a rigged election. At about the time when a winner is usually declared, votes stopped being counted in several states. At that point, Donald Trump was the leader, and he held significant leads in several swing states. While Trump gave a speech discussing his confusion over what was going on, a somewhat confident Biden told supporters he expected he would win. Bear in mind, he was telling people he expected to win Pennsylvania when he was trailing by 700,000 votes that night. He was trailing in a few states by 100,000 votes or more.

In the early morning hours the next day, the state of Michigan and Wisconsin both flipped in favor of Biden. Over the next few days, both Pennsylvania and Georgia would turn in Biden's favor. The counting had stopped in all four states on election night as well as in Arizona and Nevada, where Biden was leading, and North Carolina, where Trump was leading. The fact that Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia flipped in the way they did has millions of voters crying foul, and Trump isn't just sitting back and accepting it.

On November 19th, Trump's lawyers gave a press conference. They outlined their intent to challenge the results. They gave a summary of their case without laying out all of their evidence. They pointed out that this case won't be tried in the court of public opinion, but rather the court of law. Interestingly enough, several of the media outlets chose not to show the press conference. While the media hailed Al Gore when he challenged the election results in 2000, they're treating Trump as if he has no right to do so and is disenfranchising the voters. The media is doing a disservice to the people.

It's obvious that Trump intends to take this case to the highest court in the country if need be. People want answers. They want to know why the election had so many problems. They want to know why there were so many issues with vote counting. They want to know how the four states could flip as dramatically as they did. They don't want these questions dismissed as some conspiracy theory. 

If the media continues to gaslight everybody who has questions, it will only divide the people even further. If Biden has won, it would be in everybody's best interest if we had a proper explanation as to what was really happened. If Trump somehow overturns this election, we have bigger issues that I won't even touch here. As this all plays out, we're going to come upon the day when either Biden or Trump is seated as President. Hopefully, we can begin the process of healing the divide in this country, but that will take effort.

JRR Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings Sequel Never Had A Chance

Some of the best fantasy novels were written by JRR Tolkien. It's not that he wrote many of those, but the ones he wrote certainly resonated with the people. What many casual observers may not realize is that he had a different story in mind before he ever wrote The Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings. Sadly, there didn't appear to be much interest in a book about Beren and Luthien Tinuviel or the fall of Numenor. We may not have gotten any Middle Earth novels at all if not for the stories he told to his children.

The Hobbit became a novel after Tolkien was encouraged to write the book based on the stories he was telling his children. The book sold well, and the publishers wanted a sequel. Sadly, this meant that he wouldn't be able to develop any of the stories that we see depicted in The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales. They wanted another story involving hobbits, and they weren't even a part of the other stories Tolkien had in mind. Therefore, he drew on some of the history of the land he had envisioned in his mind and created The Lord of the Rings.

Once again, those books sold very well. It's interesting to note that people credit Tolkien with creating the trilogy, but the Lord of the Rings was one giant book. The publisher preferred to break it up into three books, but he felt it was one big story. There still didn't seem to be any interest in the stories that he was creating long before he wrote The Hobbit. Therefore, the tragic tale of Turin Tarambar or the creation of The Silmarils was going to have to wait. We didn't even see a glimpse of what he had in mind until after he passed away and son Christopher Tolkien finished his work for him.

I'm of the opinion that JRR Tolkien had such a big vision in his mind that it became overwhelming to him. Plus, he had a life. He might write a little bit here or there, but developing those other stories just never happened. It's amazing how rich and full the world of Middle Earth was when you consider how much writing he didn't do. I think about all of the books that could have been and it makes me sad. However, I'm also appreciative of the fact that he wrote as much as he did.

Son Christopher didn't attempt to write more stories in the land of Middle Earth. When you think about it, he might have been the one to do it. He was there when his dad was creating those stories about hobbits, and he had discussions with him about the land of Middle Earth in general. When Christopher put together The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and The History of Middle Earth books, he did it by piecing together what his father wrote and did his best to work with only his father's words. He was very clear that any story taking place in Middle Earth was not his but his father's to tell.

In The History of Middle Earth books, it's mentioned that JRR Tolkien considered going back one more time to tell another story. It was to be a sequel to The Lord of the Rings. I think what it really came down to was he didn't know where to go from there. Everything was so big in The Lord of the Rings that he might have felt that he wrote himself into a corner. With the elves sailing away to the west and the magic seemingly fading away from Middle Earth as the age of man began, I can see why he would have been discouraged. He hinted at the possibility of a new shadow over Middle Earth, but he only got as far as one chapter before he gave up.

I know there are others out there like myself who believe there were other stories that could have been told. It's easy for us fans to say something like that. We enjoyed his work. We didn't have the pressure of creating the stories. We had the pleasure of sitting back and reading his words while we let the story play out in our minds. The man who gave us the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit felt he didn't have any place to go with a new story. He just didn't have it in him to take another shot at it when he never really finished the work that meant the most to him. 

It makes me wonder what could have been if he'd have just sat down and kept writing. I enjoyed The Silmarillion, though it can be a challenging read for some people. I wonder how much bigger and better his fantasy world could have been if Tolkien had been encouraged to keep writing and developing the lore of the land. Sadly, we'll never know.

The Perfect New Name For The Washington NFL Football Team

The Washington Redskins are no more. PC cancel culture has claimed another prize. It's a shame to see such a long-standing tradition be ended the way it has, but this is what happens when you let PC culture run wild.

I admit I don't watch much professional sports these days. It seems to be fashionable for people to say they're no longer watching it anymore based on what's going on in the world today, but I gave up on it for a different reason.

I don't much like the way some games are rigged, and they do get rigged. I also don't care for how taxpayer money is used for funding these new stadiums when the teams already had stadiums. The owners themselves should foot the bill.

The Washington Redskins had a proud tradition as a team. There's a fight song that the fans all sang when the team was playing well. Yeah, they had their own fight song, and to my knowledge that's the only team in the league that had a fight song written specifically for them.

I know people say the name is derogatory against Native Americans, and I'd kindly disagree with that notion. The name and what it really represented speaks more to the fighting spirit and never giving up.

Whatever your stance may be in regards to Native Americans when this county started to grow and expand out west, you have to respect their fighting spirit and the fact that even now Native American culture survives. Native American culture should never die.

I get it. we can't be offended by anything anymore, so everything perceived as bad must be canceled. This is a trend folks, so get used to it. If the politically correct types have their way, we're all going to get canceled eventually.

I've been thinking about the day the Washington team has to come up with a new name, and I've got the perfect solution. I think we should rename them the Washington Woke. It's perfect for today's times.

Take that generic NPC character that's been popularized on social media. The character that's always outraged by things. This character was used in the "Orange Man Bad" meme that made the rounds a few years ago. That is the team's new logo and mascot.

The name Washington Woke flows from the tongue. A lot of people like to be woke these days. There's a difference between being woke and being awake. Woke people basically feel the way they're told to feel. People who are awake think for themselves and strive to learn the truth.

It'll take a little getting used to, but I think the name change can work. You won't have the Dallas Cowboys versus the Washington Redskins anymore. In fact, maybe Cowboys should be renamed because it might be offensive as well.

Are The Alternate Social Media Sites Right-wing Echo Chambers?

One of the things you'll hear mentioned when the mainstream media talks about alternative social media sites is that those places are right-wing echo chambers. The mainstream media is attacking those sites and trying to discourage anybody from looking at them. It's not working. Sites like Parler and Minds are seeing an increase in new subscribers due to the rampant censorship and "fact-checking" taking place at the more established sites. This is a trend that I expect to see continue in the weeks ahead.

Because of my concern over the future of the more established sites, I've set up accounts at a few of the other places. I was struck by the fact that the media isn't completely incorrect when they say that these places are filled with more politically right leaning people. It's a good and bad thing. It's good because people on the right, who are getting censored and deplatformed from the other sites, have another place to go to communicate. It's a bad thing because other political viewpoints and other topics in general don't really have much representation there. 

I should point out that this isn't because those sites don't want opposing views or people talking about non-political subjects. It really makes sense when you think about it. If people on the left are able to freely discuss their beliefs at the more established sites without fear of being censored, why would they leave? Likewise, if there are more people at the more established sites, why would any of the sporting franchises, music industry people or entertainment industry studios bother making accounts at the alternative sites? The answer is there's no reason to go there if you're not being prevented from sharing your views or promoting your content where you are.

Right now, places like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube have everything. They have the membership numbers and they have the content. Political discussions are only a part of what is done at those sites. People get entertainment news, discuss sporting events, hear about musical artists and get the latest news at those sites. Anybody looking to participate in social media will head there first because that's where everything is happening. If you make video content, YouTube is the place you would go. Twitter and Facebook are appealing social media sites for different reasons, but you'll be able to get your message out at either site. Currently, censorship only seems to happen to people who lean to the right and dare to express those opinions too much. Everybody else is safe for the moment.

You have to start some place. Parler and Minds may be dominated by political discussion, but they can grow from there. It's also important to note that they invite people from all political sides to participate. People on the right are joining in bigger numbers because of censorship concerns, but people on the left aren't being discouraged from participating. Ultimately, the discussions they have on these sites now will determine how much they grow and what they become in the future. Being sites that promote free speech is only part of the equation. People have to speak up and make those sites something others want to be a part of.

The one thing we do know is that things change in life and on the internet. At one time, America Online was the place to be. Though there were other sites, AOL dominated the internet in the early years when people were just getting online. As AOL faded, MySpace became the big social media site. However, it's reign at the top was ended by Facebook. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube may be at the top now, but things can always change again. What's offered on these platforms and what people do there that will ultimately dictate what they become in the future.

The 2020 Presidential Election Still Raises Suspicions

The 2020 election was a mess. I think people can agree on that, no matter where they stand with the candidates. Obviously, there are going to be people happier with the outcome than others, but it's still going to be a bumpy ride all the way up to inauguration day and beyond. This was a contentious election, and there were some things said leading up to election day that are going to raise suspicions in those who don't believe we had a fair election. I won't get into that any further in this observation.

However, I dispute the notion that it needed to take four days after the votes were cast to declare a winner. Given the technology that we have in this country and our abilities, it's simply not plausible or realistic. I know there are explanations. I know there were people floating the narrative well before election day that this was going to happen. However, that just caused further concern and was one of the points President Trump was making about mail in ballots. Again, I don't want to go there in this observation.

What I will say is this election raises suspicions in those who are distrustful of the government and the process itself. There were people watching the numbers. There were people in various precincts all across the country who were observing things that raised their suspicions. Social media has been censoring people for pointing out certain things. All the while, we've waited for something to happen. It did happen, but it happened in the middle of the night.

We had states shift from one side to the other, but it happened in the middle of the night. It wasn't happening in broad daylight, and it looked suspicious. What was happening in broad daylight was the news networks flashing those numbers in everybody's faces. Even though a winner hadn't been declared, it was almost like they were preparing everybody for what they were about to do. It just looked suspicious, giving more justification for the outrage expressed by the people who didn't like the outcome.

It could be harmless. It may be just as they presented it. Maybe it all happened just that way. Maybe it was all natural. Then again, maybe it wasn't. Maybe questions need to be asked. There's another way to look at this if you believe the numbers and feel that Joe Biden has won this election fair and square. Even you would have to admit that the way he won looked suspicious. Perhaps it was meant to look suspicious. The question at this point would be, why would they want to make a legitimate election look suspicious?

To that, I wish I had an answer that was positive, but I don't. The only reason I can think of for them to make a legitimate Joe Biden victory looks suspicious was because they wanted half the country to doubt his legitimacy, the same as we've had for the last 4 years with President Trump. They want to foment unrest in this country. Why would they want to do that? I have a few ideas, but none I wish to express in this observation. To me, something doesn't feel right with this. I will continue to look for the answer, whatever it may be.

My Issue With The Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame

This isn't so much a shot at the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame. To be honest, I have accepted the fact that they don't represent rock and roll music in a proper way. It just so happens that the person who founded it also ran Rolling Stone Magazine. That magazine was well known for bashing most of the good bands who haven't been inducted or in some cases even nominated yet. 

 

Consider the fact that Whitney Houston and The Notorious BIG were put into the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame this year. You heard that right, Whitney Houston and The Notorious BIG. These are not the first pop star and rapper acts to get in, and they won't be the last. Good rock and roll bands will probably be ignored again next year while other artists who don't fit the genre will get in. That's what it has become. Once you understand that, it's not even worth getting upset when they ignore more deserving bands.

Judas Priest has been ignored this year. Iron Maiden has been ignored. Whitney Houston is going in. There's something wrong with that, in my opinion. Whitney Houston certainly belongs in the Pop Music Hall of Fame. I won't argue that she had some really good songs through the years. I like How Will I Know. I like I Want To Dance With Somebody Who Loves Me. I like Saving All My Love For You. These are three good examples, and there are many more. She's still not a rock and roll artist in my mind. The Notorious BIG shouldn't even be in the discussion. I wouldn't dispute him getting into the Rap Music Hall of Fame, but I question the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame.

Pat Benatar was being considered. She was in the fan vote, and I believe she finished second to Dave Matthews. Dave Matthews was one of those non-threatening rock acts from the 1990s during a time when so much of the music being made then was doom and gloom. They were more upbeat, but I don't remember anything special about them. I wouldn't have a problem with the fan vote being honored here, but the fan vote was not honored either. Dave Matthews did not get in. Go figure.

Pat Benatar finished second in the vote, and it really shouldn't have come down to that. Anybody who was paying attention in the late 1970s and throughout most of the 1980s will remember her. She wasn't necessarily the best vocalist, but she had attitude and she was all over the airwaves and the charts. She was pleasant to look at and she had some very catchy songs. Everything from Hit Me With Your Best Shot to You Better Run to Love Is A Battlefield to We Belong. She should be in the Hall of Fame, and it should have happened before Stevie Nicks was put in. It's not that Stevie doesn't belong, but Stevie's solo career was fueled by the success she had with Fleetwood Mac. Benatar earned every bit of her success as a solo artist.

The real problem with the Hall of Fame snobs is that they tend to overlook bands that were widely popular, sold out arenas and sold millions of records. They had problems with all of them. They used terms like pretentious, "arena rock" and whatever else to dismiss them. You're not likely to see Kansas, Boston, REO Speedwagon, Styx, Foreigner, 38 Special and so on being inducted because they were popular. You couldn't turn on a radio during their time in the spotlight and not hear one of their songs. Most of these bands still tour today in one form or another because of the popularity of songs that they recorded over 30 years ago.

It's subjective. Who votes to put these artists into the Hall of Fame every year? What sort of process do they go through? If the leader of the Hall of Fame wants something a certain way, that's how it's going to be. It's all about who they like, not who the fans like. I'm happy that The Doobie Brothers are getting their long-overdue respect this year, but I really couldn't be bothered to care about the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame. As screwed up as the music industry is in 2020, the Hall of Fame is the least of my worries when it comes to the creation of good music.

I Hope Donald Trump Understands Now

In the wake of the 2016 election loss for the Democrats and Hillary Clinton, they began to turn their attention to social media. They blamed social media and interference from other countries for their loss. In reality, social media and the internet were there to give people the other side of the story that the mainstream media wasn't presenting. However, the powers that be aren't content to allow any avenue where the mainstream narrative is challenged. This meant that the clamps would get tighter on social media.

After Trump got inaugurated, things got tougher for people on the right and those who reported things that the mainstream media didn't want you to know. Because the left and the tech industry is pretty much joined at the hip, this meant that people were going to be deplatformed. People who were seen as the biggest voices against the establishment suddenly found that they weren't welcome on sites like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others. It was mainly people on the right who were being censored.

People on the left, including so many average people who don't quite understand what's really happening, cheered for the deplatforming of those who think differently than them. When that was questioned, people said that these sites are privately owned and therefore the owners can do what they want. 

There's a larger free speech argument that has not quite been discussed. The founding fathers of this country wrote the protection of free speech into The Constitution. At the time, they had no concept of an Internet or social media platforms of any kind. Free speech basically encompassed the written word and things like simply standing on a soapbox on a street corner.

President Donald Trump could see what was happening. People on the right were begging him to do something about it. People on the right were correctly reminding him of the role they played in helping get him elected. Unfortunately, Trump appeared to be ignorant on the subject. He was quoted as saying something to the effect of, "Just be nice and everything will be okay." In short, he was very naive and allowed the censorship to get stronger.

Now we are seeing partisan "fact checking" and outright censorship of certain posts that don't go along with the official narrative. This has even struck Trump himself. As a sitting president, he has seen his posts censored on social media. As he challenges the election results, some of his comments have been censored as well. Let that sink in. 

A sitting president has had his words censored by big tech. This is only the beginning of what's coming since it's not being challenged. It isn't likely to be challenged under a President Joe Biden. I hope Donald Trump understands that this is one of his biggest failings.

This Election Only Divided Our Country Further

It's a sad day in the United States. I'm not going to get too deep into talking about Joe Biden or Donald Trump. We are a polarized nation right now, and people definitely have strong opinions about both candidates. Looking at the numbers right now, both candidates got more votes than any elected president in the history of the nation. Some will call it good news that more people came out to vote than ever before.

We've been divided in this nation for a long time. It's been a slow descent into what some see as inevitable chaos. I see terms being thrown around like civil war, and it makes me sad. I've watched people who would be considered left-wing out on the streets rioting and burning down buildings, while the people on the right have been called racist. The media and politicians are even insinuating that the people on the right are going to cause problems in this nation. Why are they worried? Maybe it's because they know what all of this is leading to?

Gone are the days, it seems, when a president could unite people on both sides of the aisle. Bill Clinton certainly had his critics, but at times it seemed like he could unite the people. Ronald Reagan had his detractors, but he was maybe the best president of the last 50 years when it came to giving a speech that could bring people together. Even people on the left might say something like, "The guy sucks, but he's right about this." Reagan could unite us and make us feel hopeful about the future, which is something we need now more than ever.

My observations led me to the belief that this divide really became noticeable as we got into the 2000s. It was slowly trending that way in the decade leading up to it. From Bush to Obama, people were becoming more polarized. What came before is what led to President Trump. The man has his supporters, but he also has people who practically came unhinged at the mere mention of his name. Some will say that Trump lacks the personality or whatever you want to call it to inspire and unite the people. I can't disagree with that sentiment. 

What I can say is what was offered as an alternative was lacking. While some people on the left are going to cheer if/when the day comes that Biden gets inaugurated, others are going to dig in deep. The divide in this country is going to continue. The way this election went down has people asking serious and honest questions. I don't believe those questions will ever be answered. The thing you usually hear after an election will be said once again. It's time for everybody to unite behind the president. That's what they always say, but it's just not going to happen.

Can Biden give a speech that will unite the people? Take a good hard look at the man and the speeches he's been giving this year, and you tell me. However, people are still going to look at the results and the way they were rolled out and question their legitimacy. No amount of censoring people's honest questions on social media and barring people from discussing it on television will stop that from happening. The divide we've been experiencing in this nation is only going to get worse because we still don't have a leader who can truly bring us all together and make us feel hopeful.

You Are Not Entitled To Their Vote

I get the feeling that people on the right might need to be talked off of the ledge this morning. I'd really like to comment on the election as I watch the numbers come in. Something very funny is going on here, but I want to be careful what I say until I analyze the evidence more. I want to see the data. It isn't just what happened on election night, it's what certain political figures and talking heads have been saying for a few months leading up to the election. The stage was set for what we are witnessing long ago.

However, I want to talk about this sense of entitlement that the Democrat and Republican parties seem to have. Our country allows third party candidates on the ballot if they reach certain thresholds. There are people who feel like the system is rigged to make it difficult for third party candidates, and I agree. Third party candidates, even if they're on enough ballots to potentially get the electoral votes needed to win, are marginalized so badly that they won't win. In my humble opinion, that's by design.

However, the reality is that most ballots will have third party candidates listed with the two major party candidates. People who are informed enough to make decisions will do their research into every candidate. I know there are people who believe that going third party is a protest vote. If you're doing that, it has been suggested that you're taking away from one of the established parties. They will say that you're throwing your vote away. I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with that sentiment. While there might be people who simply vote third party as a protest, there are people who vote that way because they believe in what that candidate stands for.

Because of the nature of how close an election can get in any individual state, the margin of victory between one candidate and another may be the difference that the vote total for a third party candidate received. In other words, we've seen the Democrat party suggest that Green party candidates cost them the win. There was a lot of that talk in 2016. People blame Ross Perot for costing George Bush Sr the win in 1992. They pretty much say that type of thing every year now.

Lately, I've witnessed this mentality more from Democrats, but both parties are guilty of it. They feel a sense of entitlement to the votes. A few of the states going in favor of Joe Biden are seeing him win by a margin that is less than the total of votes that went to Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen. This has Republicans crying foul and saying she cost Donald Trump the win. I'm going to call BS on that, just as I called BS on the Hillary Clinton supporters who blamed Jill Stein for her loss.

Let me spell it out here one more time, for those who don't think so well. The major party candidates get all of the TV time. They get the newspaper time and you even see their ads when you watch videos on the internet. Therefore, you get a good glimpse of what they stand for. If that hasn't moved a person to vote for either one of them, that's the fault of the major candidates. A voter has a right to educate themselves and vote for whomever they choose. If they vote Libertarian or Green, it's because that's their choice. The Republicans and Democrats are not entitled anybody's vote. They must earn it.

I'll go so far as to say the establishment should take a look at what the Libertarian party is doing and understand that more people are looking at them. 1.6 million votes when the leading candidate gets 70 million votes doesn't seem like much, but this party would struggle to get 400,000 for a few elections as they established themselves. In recent elections, they've hit 1.4 million, 4.4 million and now almost 1.7 million and counting. Their message is getting out more, and it's impressive when you consider the media outlets barely give them the time of day.

In my opinion, the Libertarian party has more than earned a seat at the table to have their ideas considered. If the media would give their platform a chance and more people were informed, who knows how many votes they would get. They are at a disadvantage as it is and don't have much of a chance. I don't think the Democrat party would necessarily disagree with letting the Libertarians be heard as they might feel like those are votes taken away from the Republicans. However, the Green party is getting closer to a time when they should be considered as well. They are on enough ballots as it is.

What that means is the two major parties will work together to keep the other two parties at a disadvantage for as long as they can. The Democrats will support the Republicans in keeping the Libertarians down as long as the Republicans offer the same support in keeping the Green party down. They will fight to keep it that way for as long as they can. Whether either of the two major parties might work behind the scenes with the other two parties in certain swing states is subject to speculation. However, no party is entitled to anybody's vote. If your candidate lost, ask yourself why they didn't inspire more people to vote for them.

The Media Is Part Of The Problem

There's a big division in this country, and it goes across political lines. However, it's a mistake to say it's simply the politicians causing this division. It is true that the politicians seem to be worse now than in recent memory. Watching from the sidelines and not being a big fan of the Republicans or the Democrats, I've been disgusted by what I've witnessed during the last four years. Sadly, I see no end to this madness.

I've spoken in the past about the role the media has played in dividing the nation. I thought that they did a terrible job of covering the news leading up to the 2016 election. The media was outright lying to the people when they gave poll numbers suggesting that you shouldn't even bother to vote. Hillary Clinton was an iron clad lock to be the winner. First of all, they knew that wasn't true. How can the media know that? You don't know how people are going to vote until they actually vote, and was irresponsible of the media to cover it the way they did. Not surprisingly, they're doing the same thing leading up to this election.

The media picked a narrative that was against Donald Trump and ran with it. For over two years, we listened to how Russia won the election for Trump. Then, we listened to the impeachment nonsense that was built on a lie. Then, we had the covid-19 pandemic, which the media spun to blame entirely on Trump. This is called irresponsible journalism, and I don't even think it should be called journalism. This is tabloid infotainment. The media and the politicians have divided the people so badly that people only tune into things that enforce their beliefs.

This isn't even about Republicans vs Democrats. This isn't even about Donald Trump or Joe Biden. Politicians come and go, but the principles this country was founded upon endure. There are some people wondering if what's really going on here is an attempt to destroy the country. I could expand on that subject. However, what I want to talk about is the media. The media is part of the problem.

You could see the beginnings of this when CNN started airing their show Crossfire. You had people on the right and people on the left, and frequently it would turn into arguments. At the time, CNN still maintained some semblance of a news organization. You could tell there was a certain political bend in the way they reported, but you got enough of the truth out of what they were reporting to make up your own mind.

The problem is, Fox News was created to be some sort of counter to the liberal CNN. Then, MSNBC came into the picture and went even further left of CNN. None of these outlets are really telling you the news the way it is anymore. You'll get some news, and then you'll have talking heads on screen all day telling you what you're supposed to think about it. Is this responsible journalism? Is this contributing something positive to the public dialogue and making things better? I don't think so.

I'm not sure how you can get the media back to what it once was. If Donald Trump gets elected and attempts to push any sort of legislation that tries to fix the media problem, it will be vilified from the start. If Joe Biden gets in as president, you can bet it will be treated as if the only problem is Fox News and certain people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. However, there is plenty of blame to go around with people on the left and people on the right. The news needs to be the news.

I would favor classifying certain channels as infotainment and not allowing them to even be referred to as news unless they report news in a more traditional manner. If MSNBC, Fox or CNN wants to report some news and tell people what to think about it, it should be labeled as such. Part of the problem in this country is caused by the media, and it trickles into entertainment, sports and other things. One might question why that is, but that's a subject for another time.

Note To Those Who Would Riot And Protest After The Election

Getting violent and protesting the outcome of the election is not the way to bring about the change that you seek. Whether you are for one party or the other, you have to accept the outcome of the election. This is part of the foundation that the United States was built upon. There's always going to be a winner and a loser in an election, but the country moves forward.

It's a teachable moment for those who want to learn. Your candidate didn't win. Why is that? What could have been done better? What were the things that your candidate was fighting for? Was the plan solid? Was it the fact that your candidate didn't get their point across? What went wrong? This will be a time to think about all of that and make plans to move ahead.

Elections are won and lost based on how well your message resonates with the people. People who believe strongly in the Republican ideology will vote that way. People who believe strongly in the Democrat ideology will do the same. This leaves the people in the middle. These are the people who aren't strongly aligned with either party. They resonate with the message and whether they believe a candidate will do what they say they're going to do. These are the people who are going to be watching how people act after the election results come in.

Violence is not the way. At the end of the day, you learn what you need to learn from the outcome and move ahead. You don't give up on fighting politically for your ideals. That battle never truly ends in this country, which is one of the things that's made it great. If you believe strongly in your ideals and want to take a role in the political movement to make it happen, this country is set up so that you can make a difference. Changes begin at the grassroots, and the difference you make is reaching out to others and getting them to believe that your way is the way to go.

if you choose to get violent, loot and burn down buildings, the country and the world at large will be watching. What sort of impact do you think you're going to make when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of the people you need to bring about change? You will do more damage than good to your cause. That is not the way. They'll wonder if what you really want to do is burn down the country and destroy it's very foundation. If that's not what your intentions are, then you need to accept the outcome and move forward. There's always another election and another opportunity to make your case for why your way is the way to go.

It Was A Beautiful Dream

It was beautiful. You had to be there. A dictator in North Korea reversed his course and let his people be free. He then ended hostilities with the people of the south, and an era of peace began as Korea became one.

The Palestinians and the Israelis sat down at the table together and ended all hostilities. Palestine recognized Israel, and Israel recognized Palestine. Both countries would be respected by the other, and a new era of peace began.

The people of Africa were no longer oppressed. An era of peace in which all of the Africans were fed and sheltered began. The spread of disease was reversed, and an industrial age began in the continent.

The banking system as we had known it ceased to be. The hold the bankers held over the world was at an end. This was important, for without it, the peace never stood a chance. The era of smart and fair currency began.

Radical religion ended. The factions of Christianity that gave the very religion a bad name came to their senses and backed off. The radical Muslims did an about face and realized that Allah would not be pleased with their actions. Atheists realized they didn't know any more than the other side did, and stopped their practice of mocking Christianity.

The poor and hungry on the streets all over the world were given food and shelter and helped to become self sufficient. Factories long since closed in the name of progress were reopened. People were building things in America again and that meant more jobs.

It was an era of peace unseen in the world. Living life to love and be happy. Respect for people's differences. People didn't always agree, but they respected one another and didn't try to impose their will on each other. It was a beautiful dream. Too bad I woke up. Maybe one day such a world will be possible. Then, we can reach for the stars together, united as one people.