Category Archives: Liam Fabre

Was Washington a real estate mogul?

Posted on by

By LIAM FABRE

One year ago this month, President Trump and the First Lady, accompanied by French President Emanuel Macron and his wife, visited the renowned Mount Vernon estate. Mount Vernon, located 13 miles south of Washington, D.C., was the historic home of George Washington, the first president of the United States.

So why are we talking about a story that took place a full year ago? The answer is a Politico article that was published yesterday about the visit.

According to Politico, the visit was, “truly bizarre.” The tour guide assigned to the Presidents was none other than Doug Bradburn, president and CEO of the Mount Vernon estate. Bradburn told reporters that President Trump knew little about American history and struggled to keep him interested in the tour.

Bradburn piqued President Trump’s interest when he told him that Washington was an 18th-century real-estate titan.

“That is what Trump was really the most excited about,” said an inside source.This led the president to ask Bradburn if Washington was “really rich.” He was pleased to hear that Washington was in fact, really rich. Sources also stated that the president didn’t understand why Washington had not put his name on the building.

“If he was smart, he would’ve put his name on it,” Trump said, “You’ve got to put your name on stuff or no one remembers you.”

Bradburn pointed out that after all, Washington was successful in getting the nation’s capitol as a well as the Washington Monument, named after him. “Good point,” replied the president.

Though this story should not surprise anyone, it is nevertheless, disappointing. The president represents the United States and it is quite embarrassing to know that Macron was a witness to all of this behavior. It makes the president look foolish, but more importantly, it makes the United States look foolish.

#joetoo? Woman accuses Biden

Posted on by

By LIAM FABRE

Is Joe Biden a sexual predator? The short answer is no.

Earlier this week, Lucy Flores, a former Nevada State Assembly woman, accused Joe Biden of touching her inappropriately. She did not state that he sexually assaulted her, but she did say that Biden had made her feel very uncomfortable.

At a campaign event in 2014, Vice President Biden came up behind Lucy Flores, grabbed her by the shoulders and kissed the back of her head. She recalls being shocked and appalled by his actions and says he, “crossed a line of decency and respect.”

Let’s begin with the VP. The man is clearly out of line here. While some people, like Biden, are very affectionate and “touchy,” some people, like Flores, are not. Those people have a right not to be touched and have a right to express frustration at this kind of behavior.

That being said, why did it take Flores over five years to express herself? A possible answer is that Flores wants to hurt Biden. Joe Biden has made it clear that he is interested in running for president and he is currently at the top of the polls. Flores is an open Beto O’Rourke supporter and so perhaps this whole story is a political stunt.

Lastly, I will say that I am both surprised and disappointed that this story received so much news media coverage. Some woman from Nevada is mad that Joe Biden put his hands on her shoulders five years ago and somehow that is national news?

This story just illustrates the fact that political elections have become dirty, dirty games. People will try anything to take down politicians and the news media will help them every step of the way.

Corruption likely in Smollett case

Posted on by

By LIAM FABRE

In a shocking turn of events, all charges against actor Jussie Smollett have been dropped by the Cook County prosecutor.

On March 8, a grand jury charged Smollett with 16 felony counts, one for each lie he told police. Both Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and police superintendent Eddie Johnson blasted Smollett for committing such an offensive and pointless crime.

On Monday, all charges were dropped. His lawyer stated he would forfeit his bail money and that he agreed to do some community service. Smollett, however, maintains his innocence.

So which one is it? Is Smollett guilty of making a false police report and as a consequence paying $10,000? Or is he not guilty and facing no repercussions?

The story does not make sense and smells of corruption. With the overwhelming amount of evidence, including a check signed by Smollett to the “attackers,” it is unfathomable that a prosecutor would simply drop the charges.

State attorney Kim Fox said she would rather focus on more important issues such as the gun violence that plagues Chicago. Smollett caused police to waist hundreds of thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours on his hoax story. Time and money that could have been spent on the gun violence epidemic.

Many people are furious over this issue as they should be. It only further highlights Smollett’s privilege and reinforces notions that celebrities are above the law.

Michael who? The news cycle moves on

Posted on by

By LIAM FABRE

Michael Cohen, the president’s former attorney, and self-proclaimed “fixer” testified before Congress last week and it already feels like a month ago.

With Donald Trump in the White House and a news cycle that seems to move so rapidly, major news events seem to come and go quickly. Remember the Kavanaugh nomination? It may feel like it’s been years since his appointment, but it was only a few months ago.

There may be other reasons why the Cohen testimony feels already like so long ago. While a fast-moving news cycle is partly to blame, the main reason is simply: it wasn’t much of a story.

Democrats were thrilled to grill Cohen, hoping he would give them the incriminating evidence about the president they have been longing for. Unfortunately, Cohen did not bring them much.

While much of the information Cohen shared was embarrassing for the president, it was not illegal. Cohen told stories of Trump demanding that he threaten schools not to release his grades. He also told a story of a time an oil painting of Trump was being auctioned off. Trump instructed Cohen to send a fake bidder to bid on an oil painting of himself, telling the bidder to make sure it sold for more than the other paintings.

While the information is damaging, it isn’t anything most Americans don’t already know about the president. He is a narcissist, dishonest and always tried to pay as little taxes as possible. Again, not illegal and nothing we haven’t heard before.

Democrats are desperately searching for their golden ticket to impeach President Trump and, unfortunately for them, Cohen is not it.

Who is not running for president?

Posted on by

By LIAM FABRE

Earlier this week, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont announced his candidacy for president of the United States. Sanders is now one of the seemingly thousands of people who are seeking the Democratic party nomination.

So how will Sen. Sanders differentiate himself from the rest of the pack? The answer lies in the new, somewhat divided, make-up of the Democratic Party.

The candidates standing on the Democratic Party debate stage will be divided into three categories. The socialist camp, the inter-sectional camp and the establishment camp.

The socialist camp is where our beloved, “Bernie” finds himself, along with Sen. Elizabeth Warren. These candidates are self-proclaimed socialists, focused on redistribution of wealth through various governmental programs such as free tuition, free health care, etc.

The inter-sectional camp focuses on inter-sectional ideals which can be boiled down to a “pro diversity” mentality. Inter-sectionality encourages diversity in government by appointing minorities to positions of power. Candidates who flaunt the fact that they are female, persons of color, or members of non-Judaeo-Christian religions as a means to promote themselves, fall into this category. Candidates such as Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Kirsten Gillibrand find themselves in the inter-sectional camp.

The last is the establishment camp. This is made up of candidates who have had long careers in government and are strongly supported by their party. Joe Biden is one of the only politicians in this camp.

It is clear that the winner of the nomination will be the candidate that can check the most boxes, meaning the one which has roots in the most groups. In my opinion, Sen. Sanders does not have a legitimate chance at the nomination, since he is only able to check one.

Anti-Semitism? Who cares?

Posted on by

By LIAM FABRE

Ilhan Omar posted an openly anti-Semitic comment and basically, no one cares.Earlier this week Congresswoman Ilhan Omar re-tweeted a statement posted by Glenn Greenwald in which he expressed his discontent over continued U.S. support for Israel. Along with her re-tweet she added the statement, “It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” implying that U.S. support for Israel was entirely bought and paid for by the Jews.

This statement upholds the long-time anti-Semitic view that Jews in America simply buy out politicians and worse, that no one in American politics supports Israel simply from a moral basis. Her comments are disgusting and she should resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee immediately.

What was the response from the news media? The short answer, not much. Instead of focusing on the statement itself, stories focused on the fact that Omar is a “fresh face” in Congress and thus, still finding her way. Stories also covered the fact that Republicans “pounced” on her statement and overreacted.

Omar later apologized, but I would hardly call her statement an apology. She said, in another tweet, that she apologized unequivocally for any pain she may have caused, but that she stood by her statement. In my book, that is not an apology. It seems that for the left anti-Semitism is not a problem.

Omar will stay a Congresswoman and she will keep her position on the Foreign Affairs Committee. If we are to become a society without hate and one of equality, we must denounce all offensive statements. Not only the ones that further our political goals.

How to get away with murder

Posted on by

By LIAM FABRE

The Democratic Governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, openly embraced infanticide and dressed in blackface thirty five years ago. Which story did the media jump on? Surprisingly, the latter.

Northam is working on legislation with delegate Kathy Tran, that would remove all time restrictions on abortion. Women would have legal access to abortion up until the point of birth. This raised many questions among pro-life advocates and, reasonably so, as abortion gets more and more complicated as birth approaches.

Northam was asked what he would do in the event that the baby would be accidentally delivered during an abortion. Northam responded,

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

Though Northam was not fully clear, it is safe to say this so called “discussion” that would ensue would revolve around whether the baby would be kept alive or murdered. The idea that a beautiful, healthy, breathing child would be murdered outside the womb is abhorrent.

One would think such a story would draw a great deal of news media attention, however, the day after he made this statement, a photo of the governor in blackface surfaced. All media attention turned to this issue and his other comments were pushed to the back burner.

The American people need to comprehend the severity of Gov. Northam’s comments. Yes, the photo is disgusting and he must face consequences for his actions. Both issues are inexcusable, this is not an either or scenario. A representative of our government is calling for newborn babies to be murdered. Wake up America.

The Left moves further to the left

Posted on by

By LIAM FABRE

This past Sunday, U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris announced she is seeking the Democratic Party nomination for president in 2020. She is one of many men and women seeking the position. Just this past month we’ve seen Sen. Kristen Gillibrand and Sen. Elizabeth Warren announce their exploratory campaigns and former Vice President Joe Biden, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Beto O’Rourke have shown clear signs of interest.

As the race begins to pick up steam, we can see these figures, who once came together to oppose President Trump, start to fire shots at each other. It will be interesting to watch as candidates who once seemed to agree on every issue convince the public that they are different and, more importantly, better than their opponents.

So how will they do this? So far it seems to be a competition for who can move furthest to the left on every issue. We have watched as opinions that were once considered radically socialist views become the foundations of these campaigns. Policies such as universal health care, free college tuition and guaranteed federal employment, have each been wholeheartedly embraced by the Democratic Party.

So how are we going to pay for these ambitious social programs? Each candidate seems to have their own plan, but the more radical the tax, the more popular it seems to be. First, Warren introduced her ultra-rich tax, an annual two percent tax applied to the ultra-wealthy’s net worth. Then, Harris came out in support of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “New Deal,” which includes a seventy percent tax on the ultra-rich’s annual income.

Some may have thought Democrats would choose the centrist strategy, whereby electing a moderate candidate such as Joe Biden or Michael Bloomberg in the hopes of bridging the division and bringing people from both sides together. As we watch Howard Schultz, a self-proclaimed centrist, get berated and attacked by the left, it is clear they have rejected this possibility.

It seems the polarization, which became so prominent in 2016, will prevail in the next election as Donald Trump likely faces off against a candidate with a radically left agenda. The two will presumably disagree on most issues and in all probability be at polar opposite ends of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, the American people will once again be forced to take a radical stance on their opinions and embrace one candidates full agenda.