The Media’s comparison of Trumps Inaugural speech, to that of their select group of former Presidents, illustrates the depth of the political divide in this country and the shallow nature of their foundational construct. With references such as “Dark” and “Hitlerian”, how is it possible to draw such a malignant conclusion from a construct so bereft of any rational and strategic attachment to substance? The only logical explanation traces itself to a defect that has become an integral component of the national psyche; the allure of sensationalism, the fantasy message – mixed with pixie-dust and soaring rhetoric – meets an intellectually disabled and defiant public detached from reality.
When one steps back and observes these messengers and dissects their barrage of anti-Trump accusations one discovers the undertow of a fascist ideology. We were able to gather, randomly, a group of fifteen individuals who’d not previously seen Trumps Inaugural Address and though they did express similar observations none of these individuals’ comments ever approached characterizing the Trump Address as “Dark” or “Hitlerian”; not even close. The most common expression, in order of most to least frequent were as follows:
(1) “Blunt”, (2) “Straight forward”, (3) “Businesslike”, (4) “Promising” and similar comments that questioned whether or not he can actually overcome the “system.”
One other point to note: Of the fifteen individuals, eleven actually voted and of which five voted for Trump. Trump is correct; it is the right of a Nation to protect and defend its boarders, its Citizens and the order of the consenting-governed’s structure and let’s be clear, if any one of these attributes are missing how then would you have a nation to defend or a nation capable of defending itself?
Is it not then appropriate to ask the following question: Who then would be averse to this Ideal being integral to a national policy? How is a Nation distinct and just without a populist attribute? If so, then were the Founding Fathers wrong for pursuing the distinction of a Sovereign State subject only to the Constitutional Ideal of Self-Governance separate and distinct from Autocratic Rule of England? When the rule of order is the control of the masses then there is no distinction of individuality; when there is not sovereign status of the Individual there is not Liberty to Freely Express and when there is no Liberty to Freely Express then you have Fascism. In contemporary terms you then have a Fascist Global Ruling Junta!
If one accepts that it is the intent of Divine Order that you are distinct in all the universe then clearly it is not the intent of your design to be subject to the allure of sensationalism, the fantasy message – mixed with pixie-dust and soaring rhetoric – trapped within the mass of an intellectually disabled and defiant public detached from reality.
The temper of Trumps Inaugural Address displayed the character of a message free of pixie-dust and soring rhetoric delivered my a Man prepared to challenge a bureaucracy of thought that has become singularly focused on preserving its position, in diluting the distinction of a Sovereign State and Divinely prescribed and sovereign stature of His Created (you.)
It is my belief that even if Trump, in his first term, is only able to achieve 50 percent of what he plans it (still) is far better for the American People and suspends 100 percent of what the Global Fascists (including Obama) have planned for you. For me, I look forward to a future that is both worthy and a premier exhibition of what is most promising within each of us.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder
