Beyond the Cusp

January 29, 2017

Trump Clinton, the Aftermath

 

Well, it actually is all over except the shouting, and there sure seems to be a whole lot of shouting. If you do not believe us, go visit Facebook and if your page is not filled with screaming heebie jeebies, well, then your friends either do not speak English or other major languages or your friends have never heard of this place called the United States of America. Just for your edification, right now they do not appear all that united. The winner of the election rightfully depends on how you figure the winner. By the rules set forth in the United States Constitution, Donald Trump won receiving the majority of the Electoral College Delegates and it was not even close. If, on the other hand, you play by whatever rules best support your argument, in this case the popular vote, then Hillary Clinton should be the President. But if you really want to be picky, then the Democrat candidate should have been the disenfranchised Bernie Sanders and everybody knows that he would have won, just ask his supporters, they’ll tell you all about how he was cheated and how he would have creamed Trump in the General election. Just in case you have not caught on, it’s complicated. To make matters even more bizarre, Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for President, did not win a single Electoral College Delegate but still demanded recounts in the three states which Hillary Clinton was closest to beating Donald Trump and would have, any two of the three, given Hillary Clinton the victory making her President. Just for clarity, Jill Stein had nothing to gain in any recount even if done by a blind supporter of her candidacy. For reasons that escaped those on the left, that includes most Hillary Clinton supporters and all of Jill Stein supporters, the courts refused the recount efforts and decreed that the recount request by Jill Stein was ridiculous because it could never have gained her any advantage. They were very polite not to dress her down for acting for Hillary Clinton and at the Clinton Campaign’s request that she be her agent so that Hillary could remain above the dirty down under shenanigans. So, the end result is Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, which is like saying she received over 60% of California and New York plus, for the record, over 90% of Washington D.C., which way outnumbered anything Texas could produce as it was almost close in Texas, 55% Trump, but Donald Trump received the most Electoral College Delegates, that is more states which were close such as Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and you get the idea, thus winning the Presidential race. For those having difficulty, if one were to be running for school president and each of the twelve levels of classes received one delegate and candidate A won three of the classes by fifty votes each but Candidate B won the remaining nine classes by three votes on average then Candidate B wins the election nine to three but loses the vote count by one-hundred-twenty-three votes.

 

Now let us give you the particulars. You will hear the claim that each person’s vote in Wyoming, the least populous state, was equal to a thousand votes in California, the most populous state, which explains why Hillary Clinton killing Donald Trump in California but losing Wyoming was important, that actually is how it is supposed to work. If the vote were straight popular vote would anybody ever campaign in Wyoming or Alaska or anywhere other than California, New York, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and Texas? Winning California, New York, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida would easily win you the popular vote but what about the remaining forty-three states, what are they, chopped liver? That was exactly what the Founding Fathers wished to avoid except in their day it was Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The Electoral College is made up of five-hundred-thirty-five delegates. Each state receives two delegates to equal their number of Senators and then they get a delegate for each member of the House of Representatives. Every state is guaranteed a minimum of one Representative thus in the Electoral College Wyoming gets three delegates and California gets fifty-five delegates. The population of California is many times greater than the population of Wyoming, sufficient that seventy-five delegates might be a closer representation of the difference, but that is not the rule and the rules for the election were clear, crystal clear, at the beginning of the campaign. Despite knowing that she would win in California and New York, Hillary Clinton still campaigned in both states as if they were in question and crucial to her winning yet she spent little if any time in Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Michigan believing they too were guaranteed. They were not. Still, the screaming will continue as if a great miscarriage of justice has been committed because Hillary Clinton was owed the Presidency and Donald Trump is a poser.

 

So, what is the truth behind this election? Well, first off is Donald Trump is not worthy of the office of President, but then again neither was Hillary Clinton. Probably there might have been a third party or independent candidate worthy but the actual reality is the only ones with any hope of winning were the two major party candidates. So, what are the American people to do when both parties put up such candidates? They chose, it is that simple. Truth of the matter is that there are likely a fair number of people who voted for Donald Trump who now wish they had not but had Hillary Clinton won there would have likely been a near equal number of people upset with having voted for her. When the vast majority of the people are voting against one candidate rather than supporting the candidate receiving their vote, there can be no validated winner. That aside, the fact is Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton by three-hundred-six delegates to two-hundred-thirty-two delegates. That is an electoral landslide despite losing the popular vote. That leaves a vast number of disgruntled Americans facing a President who feels he has an electoral mandate. The media will do what it is able to deprive Donald Trump of any feelings of great victory be constantly questioning his victory and claiming he stole the Presidential election. Even the more conservative and Republican friendly media will not be all that favorable to Donald Trump thus he is unlikely to have many friends anywhere along the political landscape. But there are those who claim, us included, that if you are making everybody angry then you are probably being extremely fair as nobody likes a fair decision, they want their side to obviously win.

 

Still, the question is what choice was there when both candidates were so obviously flawed? The honest truth was the election was more about which candidate was going to lose, not who would win. Hillary lost the election far more than Trump won the election. Each candidate received more of their votes from people scared to death of the other candidate in the White House. As it turned out, more voters in more states were terrified of the Clinton Foundation and the pay to play politics than they were of a complete clown and poser playing at President for the next four years. More people over a wider geographic area felt that Trump could and would do less damage to the nation than Clinton. There were no great expectations or value voters but had there been such, they voted Trump over Clinton. The reality was once Hillary Clinton campaigned in a single speech that she would be President Obama’s third term she lost. Her repeating that mantra cost her the election as the states between the great mountain ranges, the Appalachians and the Rockies, voted all but unanimously for Trump. Hillary won the megalopolises and Trump the smaller cities, towns and countryside. This election was very much similar to the Truman defeat of Dewey by taking rural America over the cities. That election was initially called for Dewey famously by the Chicago Daily Tribune leading to the famous picture of Truman holding up that paper with the headline of “Dewey Defeats Truman” at his victory party. There was one news magazine which had reported a Clinton victory in the election thus history repeated itself except we had to fake the picture. This election will be exciting demonstrations and questions about what will be and might have been. No matter which side of the argument you sit, you cannot win on Facebook. To be honest, Facebook has gotten borderline toxic no matter who you supported as the extremes are ruling the posting wars. If you can survive more than fifteen minutes either you are ignoring the vast majority of posts or you have apolitical friends. All we can request is please bring back the kitten and puppy pictures and funny videos, please.

 

Dewey Defeats Truman and Clinton Defeats Trump Headlines Then and Now

Dewey Defeats Truman and
Clinton Defeats Trump
Headlines Then and Now

 

The future will debate on into infinity what would have been and what was. There will be predictions of how different things would be and debates over if Trump or Clinton really is the anti-Christ. Trump is the President and the best thing we all can do is pray that he makes at least mostly good choices. We also need remember that many of the things Trump will do, that can be reversed in the future just as things President Obama did are now being altered or nixed all together. That is how the American system functions, or malfunctions, all depending on whether your side is in power or not. After four years the American people will be given the opportunity to decide if Donald Trump was a worthy President or not. First the Republicans will get to decide whether to run Trump again or not and then the people will get a chance if the Republicans have not replaced him. Then there is the chance that Trump will decide four years of the bearing the responsibilities is a bit much for him and not run for reelection. It is possible as it has probably happened before like when Lyndon Baines Johnson decided not to run for another term seeing he would definitely have lost and did not want that on his resume. Whatever the case will be, in two years the entire House of Representatives is up for election and one third of the Senate, which leaves a large amount of potential change if people decide that the nation is going in the wrong direction still. This election was somewhat about the direction of the nation with Hillary Clinton claiming to retain the status quo and Donald Trump being the agent for change, radical change. What was interesting is that radical change won as that is uncharacteristic of the American voters and has seldom been the case. The last time such was chosen was Ronald Reagan, not to draw even the slightest of comparisons though if Donald Trump does half as much good he will have been a success. That will likely get some reactions claiming we are insane if we believe Reagan was a good President and that it was Carter’s policies of freedom that broke the Soviet empire down. That is the belief in some circles; fortunately we travel largely in equilateral triangles so as not to get dizzy. All that can be said in honesty now is may Donald Trump be guided by the better angels and produce good for the largest numbers of peoples as he is able with the limited amount of power he legally wields and may he only wield those defined powers.

 

Beyond the Cusp 

 

January 19, 2017

One Single Change Would Wipe Out 90% Congressional Corruption

 

If you spend any time on social media you can only come to one conclusion, graft is everywhere except with the less that powerful. The wealthy get away with everything up to and even including murder, though murder is the toughest one to escape. Congress has far too many members who spend three terms, or even two, and if one is astute, one term and walk away as multimillionaires. Many people ask as to how this can be. Many understand and know why this can be and often is. Senators and Representatives are covered by laws which exempt them from insider trading. So if there is a defense bill coming to a vote and the members of Congress know that in six weeks it will pass, it will easily give company XYZ a multi-billion dollar contract which is hundreds of times more than their budget for the previous five years combined. XYZ stock is selling at $1.23 a share six weeks out, so many, but not all as they take turns according to seniority, buy a thousand shares. The bill passes and Wall Street lights up and within two days that stock now sells for $327.77 a share. The Congress members sell their stock at this point making over $325,000.00 for a six week and two day investment in a stock because they cannot be charged with insider trading. This simple trick goes for much more than defense legislation and at every level of government. In the little township, county, city or borough where you live they repair roads, bridges and build parking garages and hire companies to manage all kinds of government projects. Going into such contracts these are often small family businesses with under twenty-five employees and just initially making stock options. That places their stock initially on the volatile IPO (Initial Public Offering) market which is usually the home for high risk, high reward investors and not for the faint of heart. But when you know that a small operation is about to receive a multi-million dollar, multi-year contract that market becomes far less risky and investing becomes a sure bet. This is the sleight of hand, crooked investing which can be found throughout government at all levels. Often those who would prosecute such criminal acts are also clued in on investments when the opportunity is great enough to allow a broad group to make huge benefits without actually raising too much attention. This is why you find so much money going into governmental elections and influencing because the returns are far beyond the pittance invested. Giving a number of city electors a hundred thousand dollars into their election funding and then after they defeat their opponent who received one fifth the amount they will receive multi-million dollar contracts and the city electors investing wisely become millionaires within a few years and move to Tahiti if they are smart, or buy their own newly charted island and refuse extradition to the United States.

 

This is nothing new as it has been how the Senators in Rome maintained their wealth and how the Caesars ruled over these Senators distributing government monies to those who supported them and not the others. The first Caesar, Julius Caesar made a single mistake, he kept the money with the people and refused to feed the graft machine which was the Senate and the commanders of the legions. This resulted in his big day on the Senate steps where he was made into a pincushion using tens of knives as the pins with the final pin, some claim the fifty-first knife, plunged into Caesar’s back by Brutus, “Et tu Brutus?” Wars were fought throughout antiquity to steal the wealth and enrich the King and their closest advisors and generals who commanded the troops protecting the King and winning their wars. Eventually rulers figured out they could simply tax their subjects and by taking a small to modest amount from each subject reap great wealth. Some rulers made the fatal mistake of figuring that if a modest amount granted great wealth, then doubling the tax would double their wealth. That failed as once you cross a critical point draining from the economy the economy becomes unstable and the gravy train dries up and the people revolt. So many greedy kings found their people to be revolting right before they met the guillotine, the sword or other form of execution, some far less noble at the hands of the rabble. Governmental systems have changed, governing has not. Governing is still how to provide the people with sufficient services and comfort while stealing as much as the market will bear enriching the governing. Can this poisoning of government be rooted out and extinguished? Probably not for as Campaign Finance Reform should have taught the people of the United States is that no matter how you rig the game and what you do to take the money from the hands and supporting structures of the elected public servants, they will simply invent some way around the laws, appear not to actually control what they are forbidden, have an indirect but close knot control of these funds and will make away with the wealth in the end. What is more diabolical and evil are those high government employees who are just below the appointed position who are civil servants, thus presumably untouchable by those in power, gaining wealth through careful investing and manipulation of portfolios to take advantage of information which comes across their desks as part of enacting the particulars of legislations. This has gotten far more prevalent as the legislation leaves the entirety of the building and enacting the structures to fulfill the demands of vague legislations thus allowing much of the distribution of contracts and such to these civil servants. There is little chance that these civil servants are all so clean as to not make investments or find other means of enriching themselves. There are far too many very wealthy government employees whose salaries are less than twenty-five thousand dollars a year, how did they become wealthy? Little problem in figuring that out, is there.

 

Shine a Light on Corruption

Shine a Light on Corruption

 

Money is the grease which oils the wheels of government. That remains true to this day and will likely remain true far into the future. The opportunities to become wealthy from being in the right place to hear the next outlay of millions of dollars by government cannot be eliminated until the government is trusted to machines, and then the question will be who monitors and runs the machines. All we can do is alter where the weakest links are placed and thus who gains from inside information. The history of mankind has in part been the history of seeking perfect governance and the failure at virtually every juncture. There was once a governance which was as close to that perfection people seek but is unwieldy as the people must have the faith to trust their safety and protection from other nations and their invasions or other entreaties to an entity they cannot know and claim daily their inability to understand their ruling entity trusting the messengers who claim to be the sole recipients of that wisdom. This was the ruling by Hashem over the initial Israelite Tribes through the prophets and judges. There was not government largess to benefit from its wealth and how it was distributed as all was in the hands of Hashem and there were no government programs. Roads were made by people traveling between locations using the same route which eventually packs the ground making a clear and obvious path, not what you would desire to drive your brand new Lexus across but perfectly fine for your donkey. Even the advances far, far back around 1100 BCE forced the Israelites to demand to have a King like the neighboring nations to lead their army and protect them from the threats emerging around them and Torah records that Hashem told the Judges and Prophets that should the Israelites demand some form of governance to provide them security, then they should be permitted such governance. This resulted in their taking a king asking the leading prophet to anoint their king leading to King Saul. Saul was not the worst of kings or the best, but his reign led directly through some odd circumstance to King David and then King Solomon which was the shining period where the tribes of Israel were united into a singular nation which conquered lands up to the Euphrates River (see maps below showing Twelve Tribes, King David and Solomon conquest and the promised lands for Israel according to treaties from World War I). Following Kings were less successful with the eventual downfall which coincided with a king who was an idolater and placed idols inside Solomon’s Temple, a low point for the Tribes of Israel. Over the next centuries the Israelites managed to throw off tyrants or be granted autonomy under the sovereignty of a greater power. The Israelites were even permitted to build the Second Temple which included Herod building what is today the Western Wall, built over six hundred years before the founding of Islam and about a century before the birth of Jesus. Herod made himself great amounts of wealth, sufficient to build himself a mountain with a castle and burial crypt in the Northern Negev and live a lavish life of opulence simply by giving the people what they demanded, the Temple Complex, and collect taxes in order to provide the people their desires while fulfilling his own. This has been the formula of effective governance for centuries both before and since, especially since. Many of the iconic public works projects, if investigated and audited meticulously would reveal that many within the government and closely tied to people in the governance and especially with the planning of public works gained great wealth. Be the works be a huge clock in the middle of London, a great dock providing thousands of new jobs in Amsterdam or almost any public work one could mention.

 

Left side map depicts the division of the Promised Land amongst the tribes and right side map compares the modern promised land from the Jordan west to the Mediterranean Sea compared to the maximum of area during King David’s and King Solomon’s reigns.

 

So, how can the vast majority of this corruption, this theft of the public treasure be prevented? The quickest would be to subject politicians and public servants (government workers) to the same laws as the public and demand an accounting of their incomes and investments as well as careful auditing of all contracts. Make all government bids by law be the final price charged with no cost overruns, no additional surprises, and no adjustments or new demands during production that allow for fudging numbers and hiding payouts. Adding that whatever the estimated date of delivery be set such that any time overrun resulting in a percentage of the initial payments budgeted being returned to government as a means of compensating the public for these delays. This would force defense contractors to make realistic and exacting bids instead of making a lowball bid knowing they can increase the cost through delays and cost overrun demands after the initial bid is accepted. The F-35 JSF is a prime example with it coming to delivery a good part of a decade late with cost overruns and technical problems resulting in the price of each fighter costing a good deal closer to double the expected and quoted price. Had these costs been included in the initial bid it is quite possible that the bid might have gone to a competitor. The current development and bidding system used by government contractors, especially in the defense industry, is to guess at what it might cost and to make a bid at three-quarters of that estimate completely confident that the remainder and more sufficient to make the profit desired as well as cover any difficulties along the way. This is a legalized form for guaranteeing theft. If, on the other hand, contractors were made to provide what they promised for the price they bid, and not a plug nickel over, then the bids would be far more realistic and shades higher to cover the expected of the unexpected, or should we simply call it the unplanned snags and other complications. This would allow the government and the voting public, should they be interested, to understand, and know ahead of time, exactly what projects will cost. Currently the public knows that the quoted bids are a ruse and perhaps if they were guaranteed these bids would be the exact delivery price the public might take a real interest. As things are, why bother with the bidding when one really need wait as long as a decade to find out the actual delivery price because there is little or no actual oversight.

 

Government needs to become a business, not a joke, a poke in the dark where truth is a rare commodity and concealed misappropriation the rule of thumb. If a butcher ran his store as governments are run his scale would be off by 10% and he would often have his thumb on the scale as well. Nothing would be as it appears and the rule of buyer be wary would be most necessary. Governments, when designed in democratic based nations, are presumed to be open and to be overseen by the people who by being informed can make solid and reasoned votes for their representatives. Oh, if only this were true. The reality is we elect our candidates or parties, pending on whether we have a representative democracy or a parliamentary system, according to elaborate shows designed to thrill and titillate the public with elaborate deceptions designed to sell the product making it appear more responsible than the governance’s results. The entire production is very Hollywood and just as much a fantasy. This all results in a governance just as deceptive as are the campaigns and the people depicted therein. There is an easy way which we can attest from our experience in running a campaign for the United States House of Representatives where we spent at most $10,000 and received more voted per dollar than either of our high priced opponents despite not quite garnering 3% of the vote (still the record for third party candidates where we ran). Now we feel it is important to point out that this was a campaign for a job which pays $174,000 per year (current salary) for two years for a total of $348,000 total before having to run again. Our two opponents each spent very close to the same amount on their campaigns which was estimated to have been that one spent $1,200,000 and the other spent $2,200,000. These figures for our opponents do not include PAC and Party funds and advertising. Please explain how that explains spending for a job paying $348,000 which only one of us had even a dream of showing a profit unless something else was going on. And Americans complain they cannot figure out what is wrong with their governance. Of course this is not something peculiar to the United States but exists in every government across the world. Democratic nations probably suffer the least from such deception as they do kind of have to answer to the people and when the people get upset, that distress trumps all else. In dictatorial regimes the difference is far more marked as the ruling elite get the best of what is available, that is when there is a best of available to be had. In those places suffering the worst governances imaginable, such as North Korea and Venezuela, eating and having even the necessities can be considered an extravagance. Until we return to Hashem ruling the people or machines keeping humans as their pets, there will be those people using the government for self-enrichment. Always has been and always will be, or so it appears.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

January 15, 2017

Freedom of the Media was and is an Illusion

 

Freedom of the Media, the Press, was intended to mean that the media was allowed to take position opposing those in power. With President-elect Trump we have a complete rebirth of freedom in Media as the leftist media has been permitted total freedom in denouncing, condemning, delegitimizing and casting overt dispersion in such rapidity that the Maxim machine gun is jealous of their repetition rate against all items Trump. The only threat the American, and its twin of the European media and much of the western and developed world’s media, is facing is that largely, with few notable exception, is pure leftist progressive slant where anything which is not in line with their politically correct, censored, straight-jacket narrow view of the world is denounced as demonic, evil, Nazi-esque and potentially leading to censorship closing down all opposing views of the right wing. The media and their vociferous echo chamber of NGO’s, political advocates, full array of supportive leftist and progressive alternative media, and various leftist lobbyists all standing together making as much racket as the world might stand. That is one of the precious secrets of the Progressive leftists, they are all for one and one for all even more so than the Three Musketeers. This becomes evident in the one area where the left progressives have mastered something that the other end of the political spectrum has yet to even consider, let alone adopt.

 

Watch any demonstration for any leftist Progressive cause and you will soon understand how they get hundreds or more at every demonstration, universal representation. Go to an ecology rally against perhaps coal powered electricity plant in your city and there will be all sorts of ecology demonstrators including anti-nuclear power, pro-wind power, save the whales, clean our rivers, save the oceans, clean air and any other ecology cause imaginable. But that is not all. There will likely be others there who support other causes and are not particularly worked up about the ecology of the Earth and more concerned with the pro-choice, anti-death penalty, anti-racism, and even pro-Palestinian or BDS or other anti-Zionist, anti-Israel movements all there for one reason, the leftist you scratch my cause I’ll scratch your cause. Often at a demonstration for some cause there will be protest signs for other causes within the demonstration because if you protest one leftist Progressive cause, you are there representing all leftist progressive causes. And the mainstream will give favorable coverage with inflated numbers of protesters and enthusiasm and will take their pictures selectively attempting to only get the right standards despite others also on prominent display. Many will accuse me and ask how it is I know this. Well, once upon a time many years ago I was one of those liberals back when being a liberal meant keep the government out of my life, respect for all people, equality for all, live and let live, and, believe it or not, gun rights was not an automatic exclusion from the club. To be honest, the one cause which had tepid support was gun rights, but at least in those days it was not a cause which caused one to be disassociate and shunned.

 

Back then one went to every protest just as is the means today. There were people who would pay people to attend protests which were considered vital. These were often the protests against particular politicians or counter rallies to out shadow any right wing causes by having greater numbers at the counter rally thus making the coverage all about the liberal progressive cause which opposed the scheduled protest. Often the counter protest did not have any license or permit and actually be technically illegal but they were seldom forced to disperse and were given much freedom. The exception were the anti-war demonstrations which the government took a dim view and would use violent force to break up such demonstrations. This was back in the late 1960s and into the 1970s and with the times the position of the establishment changed as the left took command during the Administration and Presidency of Jimmy Carter. That was a turning point as from that point on the left progressive tours de force began a simple tactic, the just ignore everything between progressive majorities and just pick up right where the last front left off. This made for a force which became all but an inevitability which could never be opposed by anything the conservatives could establish.

 

This became evident when President Jimmy Carter simply picked up where President Lyndon Baines Johnson left off with the Great Society, affirmative action, wealth redistribution, ecology restrictions on industry through emissions and every other leftist progressive cause. Then there was a break for a dozen years of the Reagan and George H. W. Bush Presidencies. Then came President William Jefferson Clinton who continued expanding the progressive cause and then came another Republican, President George W. Bush, who was not so much a counter to the progressive causes than a slightly different approach in establishing big government programs which the “No Child Left Behind” program. This brought on the yet another rendition of ‘new math,’ ‘full word recognition’ and stressing minority contributions from the past replacing history with little mention of any contributions from white males and especially Judeo-Christian ethics and instead an anti-ethical education which removed any standard history of the United States and other Western histories which when mentioned it received condemnations of how it was exclusive not as meaning something exemplary but rather as racist, prejudiced and intolerant. Any traditional history was belittled and condemned by using modern day morality and equal rights viewpoints making everything from the past appear hateful and vengeful being racist, prejudiced and xenophobic. Making normative history where Christian, white male formed history such as the Founding Fathers were cast as hateful slave owners and thus not ethical or acceptable because such was unacceptable in these modern times and the European greats such as Da Vinci, Michael Angelo, Isaac Newton, Galileo and others were also intolerant, supremacist, racist, sexist and likely homophobic or full of other forms of hateful white supremacist views which would be condemned in today’s world. This version of history left much of traditional history untaught or presented as something to be rejected and spurned as horrible examples of a hateful past.

 

The Protest

 

Some of such views are being presented in the media where past events are presented under a modern viewpoint and leftist microscope where anything which was acceptable back in history becomes unacceptable and regrettable as it fails to measure up to the modern ethos and leftist yardstick which was unheard of and did not exist when the history occurred. This method was designed and makes children ashamed of their past history and thus leaves them unattached to their past and because of their being separated and unanchored their views can be molded in such a manner as to overturn their ethics and allows them to be made to accept anything as one who has no past can be given any defined future. This is an actual method for disconnecting children from their parents, their history, their religious affiliations and anything which might define them as a continuation of their actual society and are instead given an entire redefined ethos which has nothing connected to their history and disconnecting them from parents and everything which would allow for a continuation of history and a continuation of the historic societal models. This is reinforced by the mainstream media which works using the identical redefined ethical framework leaving a youth which when they take the reins of power, they will start a society completely detached from past realities and all of history. The casting of all former history as evil and ruinous and without any worth was beautifully exemplified by President Obama when he returned the bust of Sir Winston Churchill as he refused to retain the visage of a colonialist, racist, evil, hateful individual and not the man who saved the world from Nazi Germany’s world conquest. This is indicative of the new morality that the mainstream media and education which are both completely under the thumb of the progressive, leftist rewriters of all history and religious anchors in order to create a brave new world where for all intents and purposes they could teach children that 2 + 2 = 5 as truth and the children would have no anchoring to know it was a lie. Thus is the prospect for the future in Europe, the United States and the remainder of western society, culture and the developed world should it remain under the sway of the progressive leftists whose remaking of society has actually been in progress under even the ‘conservative’ politicians since Theodore Roosevelt and shifted into high gear by Woodrow Wilson and accelerated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt (yes, a relative of Theodore) and moved along even faster by Lyndon Banes Johnson and the line held by Jimmy Carter and slight advancement by William Jefferson Clinton and George W. Bush and then taken airborne and breaking virtually every barrier by Barack Hussein Obama with the future remaining to be seen. The main reason for the apoplectic fits and near convulsive contortions by progressive leftists over the election of Donald Trump is they fear those who hold their religion as holy, their ethics as cemented in a tradition worth preservation, their history as ethical and who desire moderation in progress where changes are evaluated over time, instead of great leaps being taken blindly without looking back and burning all the bridges and even the castles and fields behind them assuring there is no chance of retrieving any morsel from our collective past as they are ashamed of their Judeo-Christian history despite it having been the basis for many positive developments.

 

They refuse to credit the Judeo-Christian ethics with the end of slavery instead blaming it for slavery, bringing about the Renaissance instead dwelling instead on earlier Church anti-science standings ignoring the truth that things changed and the fact that many of those precious progressive ideas they hold as sacred have their roots in the Judeo-Christian ethos that people are all equal in the eyes of Hashem and instead teach that religion was all about exalting white, male Christian superiority and all the evils which can be appropriated to such a viewpoint. The fact that history has been a progression of events and evolutions caused often by the very past which originally opposed change but with time softened and became champions of the progressive changes in society. The reason for the new view demonizing the past of the youths’ parents and ancestors and pressing that all their views which are actually the logical result of the Judeo-Christian ethics, they want to disposes the past and make the youth divorce their history and thus be pliable and moldable into whatever the latest untested theories for society the progressives can invent. Where this will lead is to an entire unanchored generation which will fall before any anchored group which has a strong history and religious anchoring who are willing to fight for their beliefs. These types will rule the day simply because, as the old adage goes by G.K. Chesterton (we realize that anything old, especially adages, is unacceptable and makes any argument unacceptable but tough), “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.” This probably states why the progressives work so hard to disconnect the youth from their past.

 

Beyond the Cusp 

 

« Previous PageNext Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.