Mueller's Early Christmas Gift

Mueller's Early Christmas Gift

Also, what is John Kelly talking about?

Robert Mueller's indictments were huge news.

Not only did we have Paul Manafort and his assistant indicted on twelve counts, but we also found out there has been a guilty plea. George Papadopoulos, a junior level foreign adviser to then candidate Trump, has pled guilty to lying to the FBI and has been working as a "proactive cooperator". Of course, the Trump administration is trying desperately to distance themselves, calling him a "low, level volunteer." Papadopoulos was in contact with a London-based professor with extensive ties to Russia, who said he had "dirt" on Clinton. Papadopoulos was then encouraged by another Trump staffer, Sam Clovis, to "make the trip" to Russia, "if it is feasible." This story is very exciting and fascinating, and It has the Trump White House scrambling and frustrated. There is another story, however that I think is being buried, and it is an important one. One that involves Chief of Staff John Kelly.

John Kelly was on Fox News the other night giving an interview to Laura Ingraham. When asked about a church in Virginia that had recently taken down a statue of Robert E. Lee, John Kelly praised Lee as "an honorable man who gave up his country to fight for his state." Kelly, who is a retired Marine Corps. General, also stated in the interview that the Civil War was caused by "the lack of ability to compromise." So, let's dissect the statement about Robert E. Lee first. Lee, along with the confederate army, decided to rebel against the United States. How is this honorable?

The second statement is what infuriates me the most. If we look back through history, the issue with slavery began with the founding of our country. While writing the constitution, our Founding fathers were split on the issue of slavery, as a compromise they came up with the infamous " slaves would count as three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation and taxation." It also, in not so many words, allowed Congress to ban the international slave trade, but not for 20 years. Most Northern states had already passed abolition laws by 1800, but the national debate intensified as groups debated over the expansion of the U.S. and if slavery would be allowed in new states. In 1820, we got the Missouri Compromise, which allowed Missouri to enter the union as a slave state but forbade slavery above the 36th parallel line, which set up the battle lines for the war to come. The Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854 mandated that any state, no matter geography, was permitted to decide the question of slavery by "popular sovereignty." Lincoln tried to compromise with the Southern states by a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow slave states to continue slavery but prohibit slavery in new states. “It reflects a very old set of ideas about the meaning of the Civil War,” David Blight, a historian at Yale University said. “Everybody was right, and nobody was wrong. Everybody was noble, everyone fought for their conscience, you don’t have to worry anymore about what they fought for.”

What infuriates me the most is that everyone thought John Kelly was going to be the “normal” one in the Trump administration. It turns out he is just as crazy as the rest of them. This is what they do. They take history and they distort it into a narrative that suits their agenda. Keep your eyes up and your ears open. Don’t get distracted from what they are doing. Resist.

Cover Image Credit: Wikipedia Commons

Popular Right Now

Poetry On Odyssey: A Comment

How easy it is for a comment online to spark inspiration, as well as a corrupted society

You thrive behind a machine.

You spite words you don't understand.

And cast blame on those who are easily unseen.

I wish you could comprehend,

The hate you create from your keys,

The soft clicking you use to defend,

Defending a means,

A means that brings people to their knees.

And not with hope, not with admiration,

But with a fear,

A fear that thrills the entire nation.

You decide to remain on a side.

A side that is all about you.

So I suppose, there is no better place for your pride.

You call us children,

For believing in change.

You call us alien,

But to us, everyone is allowed to be their own kind of strange.

We don't expect you to change your views.

We don't expect you to understand our truths.

But everyday there is different news.

We will fight for our right to be our own,

And stand together.

Helping and understanding.

Because our mission is to make the world better.

Cover Image Credit: via Flickr

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Yes, We Need Someone LIKE Oprah, But We Don't Need Oprah In 2020

I'm a Democrat who can't believe we're willing to repeat the same past mistakes.

After Oprah's speech at the Golden Globes, people have been talking through various sources of media about the possibility of Oprah running for president in 2020. Her speech was beautiful, direct, and empowering. It was the kind of speech that someone eyeing the presidency would deliver. I love Oprah and I love everything for which she stands. Her story of persistence and success after multiple failures is inspiring and something that everyone can identify with. Yet, I don't want her to run for president in 2020 and here's why.

Plain and simple; she's not qualified. Oprah's education from Tennessee State University was focused on communications. She has been working in the field of communications her entire life. She has made billions off of her shows, network, books, and various other enterprises. One cannot possibly believe that she has the skills and resources to run our country. I hate that I have to make this comparison, but look at Donald Trump. Although he has run a somewhat successful real estate brand (after receiving a small loan of a million dollars from his father), Trump's work as a businessman does not make him qualified to be the president. Yet here we are. Although Oprah and Trump have completely opposite views from one another, I can't imagine that Oprah's lack of experience would be any different from Trump's, save perhaps for Oprah's apparent willingness to learn the ins and outs of the position.

Another reason: Oprah is still a billionaire. We've seen how Trump's policies revolve around whatever will put more money in his pocket. While Oprah has a history of being generous (think: "You get a _____! You get a _____!"), she still maintains a billionaire status. Will she be able to take a step back from her various business endeavors to govern the country? Who will step into her place and take over as the new "Oprah" to run her company?

Please don't misunderstand me. I agree that we need someone like Oprah to be the president, but let's choose someone like Kamala Harris or any other woman that has been fighting hard for women's and minority rights but who also has a history in politics. The solution is not that we need more people that aren't career politicians. We need more career politicians that care about their constituents and the needs of their district, end of story.

Cover Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Related Content

Facebook Comments