Your task is to extract the thesis of an opinionated news article by selecting some of its text segments. The thesis is a summarization of what the author wants to persuade the reader of. Your answer should consist of segments of the given text. Note that you are not allowed to combine different sentences.

Example Input: Is it not time to dismantle the CIA? It's not as if we weren't warned about the CIA . Some 50 years before the Senate Intelligence Committee issued its 500-page report on torture, former President Harry Truman published an opinion piece in the Washington Post asserting that the CIA was out of control and calling for it to be broken up . Truman's column appeared on December 22, 1963, a month to the day following US President John F Kennedy's assassination and 11 years after he himself moved out of the White House . Truman argued, as the president who authorised its establishment in 1947, that the CIA had strayed from the mission he had intended for it . He had favoured creation of the CIA so that a president would have one agency providing him with objective foreign intelligence, rather than having to rely upon the often conflicting information being served up by the Departments of State, Defense, and others who "slanted to conform to established positions of a given department" . Viewing intelligence gathering as its sole mission, Truman was disturbed "by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment . It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government." He said he had "never had any thought" that the CIA would involve itself in "cloak and dagger operations" . But it had which "has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas" . It is clearly of some significance that Truman published his piece just one month after Kennedy's assassination . Although there is no evidence that Truman was suggesting CIA involvement in the assassination , it is impossible to believe that the late president's difficulties with the CIA were far from Truman's mind . As a former president who the Kennedy White House regularly briefed on foreign policy issues and decisions, Truman knew how the CIA essentially steamrolled Kennedy into the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba (and other anti- Castro actions), leading Kennedy to tell a friend that he wanted"to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds" . Kennedy never had the chance to follow up on that idea but it was essentially what Truman suggested a month after Kennedy's death . Obviously, Truman's recommendation had no effect . In fact ,  the Washington establishment apparently took action to see that Truman's piece disappeared almost without a trace (easier in those pre-internet days) . According to former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, the Washington Post only published the piece in its morning edition, pulling it from view after that (a peculiar way to treat an opinion piece by a former president, especially on such a weighty issue) . McGovern also reports that former CIA Director Allen Dulles, who Kennedy fired after the Bay of Pigs debacle, actually flew down to Truman's home in Independence, Missouri to get the former president to retract . Although Dulles reported back to his friends that Truman had indeed recanted , he clearly never did . In fact ,  six months after publishing the column in the Post, Truman wrote to the managing editor of Look Magazine that he intended the CIA as an intelligence gathering agency only and not a place where"strange activities" would be launched . No doubt, the Bay of Pigs and Cuba, in general, were not the only examples of CIA interventions that disturbed Truman . In the years between the end of Truman's administration and his Washington Post column, the CIA had orchestrated the overthrow of governments in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Congo (1960), Dominican Republic (1961), South Vietnam (1963), Brazil (1964) . Within a year following Truman's death, the CIA successfully brought down the Allende government in Chile (1973) . As for its activities since, its intelligence activities have clearly continued to be a low priority (it has gotten Iraq wrong from the start, culminating most recently in its failure to predict the rise of ISIL) while , what Truman called its "cloak and dagger" operations, have proliferated . According to historian William Blum, writing in Foreign Policy Journal, in the last 69 years, the CIA has (often in conjunction with the military) "(1) attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, most of which were democratically-elected, (2) attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries, (3) grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries, (4) dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries, (5) attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders." And now there are the horrific reports of torture and, equally appalling, the defense of CIA torture by former CIA driectors, other top CIA officials and, most enthusiastically, former Vice President Dick Cheney who famously told NBC five days after 9/11 that it was now time for US intelligence agencies to operate on the "dark side" . That is the context of the torture debate . As Truman understood, the CIA was dangerous and should be broken up or, in Kennedy's words, "splinter[ed] into a thousand pieces and scatter[ed] to the winds" . That was 50 years and nine presidents ago and since John F Kennedy, no president has challenged the CIA . Perhaps each of them have understood there are battles that not even a president could win .
Example Output: Some 50 years before the Senate Intelligence Committee issued its 500-page report on torture, former President Harry Truman published an opinion piece in the Washington Post asserting that the CIA was out of control and calling for it to be broken up

Example Input: Ho Ho No: School bans Santa from winter concert. A Massachusetts school that advertises itself as an "inclusive community" banned Santa Claus from its annual Christmas concert in the hometown of Harvard University after someone complained . "I am writing to you today to inform you of a change in our concert series this winter," wrote Principal Jennifer Ford in a letter to parents of the Peabody School in Cambridge . "Our first through fourth grade concert as well as our kindergarten concert will not include a visit from Santa Claus this year." The principal did not explain why Santa was banned from the December 12 concert . Could local environmentalists have taken issue with his carbon footprint? Did animal rights activists complain about the welfare of Prancer and Vixen? Did the milk and cookies violate the school's "Let's Move" food rules? It's hard to know for sure -- but I'm going to take a wild guess and say they probably thought Santa was the "Reason for the Season." CLICK HERE TO FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CONSERVATIVE CONVERSATION . Moms and dads around Cambridge, Mass  say the principal's ban is naughty, not nice and some are ready to jingle somebody's bells . "I come from a city that celebrates diversity and tolerance," parent Robert Thompson told Fox & Friends . "At its base this decision reeks of intolerance." Instead ,  Jolly Old Saint Nick has been relegated to a family sing-along on the day before Christmas Eve . Thompson said as if they are saying Santa is not "good enough for the main show." The school was afraid even that even the presence of Old St  Nick overly sensitive residents . "I am sensitive to the fact that you may not want your child involved in this event," Ford wrote in a letter obtained by the Boston Globe . "If you prefer that your child spend time with me that afternoon , please let me know . I will be in the library, playing games and reading books with the children." How's that for an unadulterated does of liberal lunacy? It's enough to curdle your egg nog . Jeffrey Young is the superintendent of this calamitous mess of public education . He told the Globe he doesn't understand why Santa needs to visit the Peabody School . "There's no anti-Santa sentiment," he told the newspaper . "It's just that there's no pro-Santa sentiment either... Santa's not on the top of my list" . I'd be willing to bet a pound of fruitcake the superintendent is at the top of Santa's list . Mr  Thompson said the school celebrates all sorts of cultures - so why not his? "They are telling me mine is not acceptable," he said . Of course ,  this is the hometown of Harvard University - so it's fair to say they have a disproportionate number of certifiable citizens . This is the same town that in 2007 stopped a Boy Scout troop from collecting care packages for American soldiers . They scouts were accused of making a political statement . And how can we forget about the city's war on carbonation? The mayor wanted to ban any bottled soft drinks larger than 16 ounces . They also wanted to decide how much popcorn citizens could pop and how many milkshakes citizens could slurp . And if you need further proof that Cambridge is to the left of Vladimir Putin , consider this item from the 2006 edition of The Harvard Crimson . A member of the Cambridge Public Schools Committee compared a law mandating the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to a "post 9/11 ultra-patriotism push." School committee member Luc Schuster told the newspaper that "pledging blind allegiance" to the United States stifles the intellectual capacity of children." You just can't argue with that kind of ignorance, folks . Sounds to me like they've been smoking too much mistletoe . As they say back home in Tennessee- the cheese has done slid off the cracker . Ho, ho, ho, America!
Example Output: A Massachusetts school that advertises itself as an "inclusive community" banned Santa Claus from its annual Christmas concert in the hometown of Harvard University after someone complained "Our first through fourth grade concert as well as our kindergarten concert will not include a visit from Santa Claus this year."

Example Input: US economy: Why I'm optimistic about growth in 2015. Could 2015 be the breakout year for the economy? Last week we got very joyful news :. All of this is good news as we ring in the new year . And the best may be yet to come . So why is the economy finally shifting into a higher gear? This isn' t a story of government-directed growth or stimulus spending . It's the opposite : Washington's role in the economy is starting to shrink after years of Obama administration activism . The private sector is starting to take over . The growth was propelled by a big rise in business investment, up nearly 9 percent; personal consumption, up 3.2 percent; and exports, up 4.5 percent . Government spending, which is a negative for the economy, grew by 4.4 percent, thanks to a big rise in military spending , but domestic spending is still restrained . The news was so good that even the threat that the Fed will now have an excuse to raise interest rates hasn't deterred the bulls on Wall Street . Here is the case for optimism going forward . First ,  a huge factor in the economic rebound has been the fall in energy costs . As the price of oil has fallen from $105 a barrel this summer to closer $70 by September,(and at the end of December it was at $53) the cost of oil imports has tumbled . Imports fell by nearly 2 percent , and this alone added almost 0.2 percentage points to GDP growth . Even that greatly understates the economic windfall from cheap energy . Production costs fall when energy costs do , so the supply of American-produced non-oil and gas products, such as manufactured goods, rises when gas is cheap . Gas prices should continue to fall , the good-news story rolls on , and the addition to GDP from energy should be even higher . Thank you, Texas and Oklahoma and North Dakota . And thank you, fracking . Second , businesses are clearly feeling less trepidation about investing , and some of the wet blanket of Obama's anti-business, anti-shareholder agenda has dissipated as the Republican Congress repels his worst ideas: cap-and-trade, minimum wage hikes, new taxes on the energy industry and massive new spending initiatives out of Washington . Gridlock now looks to be built into the political system for the next two years, and in many ways that's reassuring . Third ,  government spending has fallen a lot more than people think . Despite the boost in military spending in the last quarter, the biggest story of the U.S  economy over the last three years has been the retrenchment of government spending . Federal spending has fallen from 24.4 percent of GDP in 2009 and 23.4 percent of GDP in 2010 to 21 percent of GDP in 2014 . Even better news is that in the fourth quarter of 2014, federal spending as a share of GDP fell to below 20 percent, according to a new analysis by Dan Clifton of Strategas, an economic policy consulting firm . This is creating an anti-Keynesian boost to growth, because the government is taking fewer private sector resources each month . The 4 percentage points less of GDP that the government is spending means 4 percent more GDP for private businesses and families to spend . That's close to $700 billion a year more for private investment and construction and spending . This, by the way, shows the foolhardiness of the Keynesian notion of a government-spending free lunch . Five years ago the Obama economics team was talking about multiplier effects from higher federal outlays -- the stimulus bill spent $830 billion-- that would juice the economy with even more private spending . It never happened . Even President Obama's own economic analysis found the economy grew more slowly than it would have without the government debt- financed spending . The real effect of government spending is to crowd out private spending . A final reason for optimism is that the incoming class of Republican governors and conservative state legislators across the country should mean more growth policies coming out of state capitals . At least a dozen governors from Massachusetts to Illinois to Tennessee are talking about tax cuts to create jobs . So even if we don't get tax reform at the federal level , states should be providing an additional tax cut stimulus . Skeptics will say that Obama's executive actions on climate change, immigration, energy policy and so on will continue to be a restraint on growth . That's for sure . This recovery from recession is still nearly $2 trillion behind where we should would be if we had a Reagan-paced boom . This is still one of the most anemic recoveries , though it is belatedly picking up steam . It's also true that wages are still flat for most workers , so the big challenge for the economy is raising productivity so Americans get a well- deserved pay raise . As 2014 comes to a close, here's where we are : Interest rates are as low as they've been in 40 years ; inflation is tame, thanks to the surge in oil and gas output ; and corporate profits remain high . The rest of the world economy, from Germany to Japan to Russia, is a debacle . But that's all the more reason to bet on the USA in 2015 . And ,  no, Mr  President, you didn't build that .
Example Output:
Could 2015 be the breakout year for the economy?

