Beyond the Cusp

April 1, 2017

What Good is Bipartisanship if One Side Supports Your Demise?

 

The AIPAC convention ended last week and the eighteen-thousand plus attendees returned home hopefully more invigorated, excited and informed about Israel, the challenges facing the Jewish State and the means by which they can best support the State of Israel. Unfortunately that may not be the case. One of the goals of AIPAC over the years has been to continue to be nonpartisan leading to bipartisan support for Israel. This has worked admirably well since 1967 when the United States took an interest in pursuing an actively supportive roll with Israel yet still continued its arms embargo which had been in effect almost immediately after granting Israel recognition in May of 1948 until 1968 when, with strong support from Congress, President Lyndon Baines Johnson approved the sale of Phantom fighters to Israel, establishing the precedent for US support for Israel’s qualitative military edge over its neighbors. This has little effect though on American support for the militaries of several allied Arab nations who potentially could have been Israeli enemies in future hostilities. Since 1968 Israel had received bipartisan support with politicians from both sides of the aisle in the Congress acting and voting favorably in matters concerning Israel. There have been some individual actions which placed this support into something conditional on Israel committing herself in a manner which the United States required for their support.

 

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu when Addressing AIPAC

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu when Addressing AIPAC

 

The most famous came during the Yom Kippur War when President Nixon, under urging and pressure from Secretary of State Kissinger claiming that this action would force the Israelis to be more malleable and easily controlled, initially denied resupply of desperately needed armaments by the Israeli Defense Forces. When Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir called President Nixon and informed him that Israel without resupply might necessarily have to fall onto the Samson Option, a suspected but never actually defined last ditch effort if facing being overrun, expressed the desperate need that President Nixon released the needed armaments. This led to another problem as numerous European nations refused United States requests to allow the resupply planes landing and refueling rights as they also were refusing to assist Israel and were refusing to assist the United States in assisting Israel. Still, the planes did get through and Israel survived the surprise attack on Yom Kippur which almost resulted in an Israeli defeat. It need be pointed out that one Israeli defeat and there will be no Israel and the resulting toll of Jewish deaths would be unprecedented as today there are over six-million Jews living in Israel. There were rumors that another reason Nixon sent the arms was that Israel had opened the silo covers from their missiles and this was picked up by a geosynchronous spy satellite stationed over the war zone, otherwise meaning over Israel as she was attacked by Egypt and Syria with additional support by expeditionary forces from Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Cuba, and Morocco and additional air support from Libya as well as a North Korean deployed MiG-21 squadron to Bir Arida to protect Egypt’s south.

 

IDF Air Force Phantom II F-4E

IDF Air Force Phantom II F-4E

 

Israel continued to receive bipartisan support from the Congress and a good amount of such remains to this day. There have been times when the Republicans wavered especially during the late 1980’s and into much of the 1990’s as a response to tepid at best Jewish support for Republicans. With the rise of the Evangelical Christian support for Israel, the Republican support has returned to a robust level. The weakening support currently lies with the Democrats who have come to figure basically who are the Jews going to support as the vast majority of American Jews are liberal to far leftists. There are exceptions mostly amongst the Orthodox and religious Zionist Jews who are supportive of the Republicans. So the Democrats simply take their seventy-five plus percent support by the Jews as a given for which they actually need not support Israel and these Jews will continue to support them. This is further proven by the wavering of Leftist Jews in their support for Israel, many have actively become supporters of the Palestinians at the cost of Israel. They have come to view Israel to be a right wing governed stronghold and are against Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, Jewish Home Chairman Naftali Bennett, the Justice Minister and second chair in Jewish Home Ayelet Shaked as well as the remainder of the Likud Party, the religious parties and the Zionist parties as opposed to their preferred solution of removing all Jews from Judea and Samaria as well as much of Jerusalem and giving all this for a Palestinian Arab state and not necessarily an unarmed Arab State. They view Israel as too religious, too Jewish and Torah observant and are extremely disgruntled over Israeli insistence on recognizing Torah observant Jewishness and not accepting Reform, Reconstructionist, Alternative Orthodox and some Conservative Rabbis’ conversions because they do not meet the more stringent Israeli requirements for conversions within Israel. These Jews have decided if Israel refuses to allow American Jews to dictate policy and what government they can have, then they refuse to support these ungrateful Israeli Jews; sad but it is true.

 

This wavering by the Democrat Party in many instances not being supportive of the Israeli government and the lack of support from a large segment of Jewish Democrats, there are some who question if this bipartisanship is working. This came particularly to the fore when President Obama challenged AIPAC and demanded they choose between the Israeli position and that of the Obama Administration pushing that support for Israel could hinge on their accepting the President’s position on the solution which favored the Palestinian Arab position and placed all the onus on Israel to bend over backwards and make all the concessions receiving nothing in return. AIPAC buckled to the pressure from the White House and in the process sacrificed their Zionist beliefs placing them on the altar of political correctness and then making a fire sacrifice burning them up as the President demanded. It was a sad thing to watch and to behold what was pledged to be a pro-Israel group turns on their pledges to Israel in the name of bipartisanship as they feared losing Democrat support. One could ask is Democrat support actually necessary if it requires forsaking your guiding principles? That is where the ZOA (Zionist Organization of America) and its President, Morton A. Klein, did Israel and Zionism proud when the ZOA faced similar pressures and simply stood as Zionist and let the consequences be what they may. Sometimes this is what supporting a cause requires, stating your principles and standing by them as without a principled core, what does an organization have to show, bipartisanship without a core, that is meaningless.

 

Zionist Organization of America President Morton A. Klein

Zionist Organization of America President Morton A. Klein

 

AIPAC will soon face a crisis and it is rushing towards them as if it were a runaway train without any brakes or anyone in the cab. The leftists and liberals, especially those in the Democrat Party, are going to press for AIPAC to stand with them against President Trump and his Administration with their Israeli policies. This will be a do or die decision for the leadership in AIPAC. The Democrats are basically going to give them an, either you are with us or against us, proposition. This will put bipartisanship completely out of the equation as they will be facing a choice as to which side they are going to support, President Trump and Israel or the Democrat Party, its leftists who have run off with the party and the Palestinian Arabs. This will be a one or the other and as the vast majority of Jews currently are Democrats, this will be an even more difficult choice as much of their finances come from these Jews and their support for many will hinge on AIPAC’s choice. The true Zionists who still remain in the Democrat Party, likely because their Congressperson still supports Israel and they refuse to see the truth of the heart of the part having turned against Israel, will remain loyal to AIPAC no matter which way they decide. What is actually in the balance will be possibly the depth of Trump and his Administration to their pledged support for Israel. After all, if AIPAC stands against what President Trump and his people are hoping to accomplish vis-à-vis Israel, would that not point to the fact that maybe they are going about things all wrong? AIPAC represents presumably the pro-Israel position and if they are opposing your actions, well, what does that say. Additionally, what kind of signals are sent when the two presumably most pro-Israel groups stand in opposition to one another with ZOA supporting Trump and all he is attempting to accomplish while AIPAC stand in opposition. We will see what happens but there is one last warning we must present AIPAC with, this is one decision that not deciding is deciding because as far as these leftist Democrats and their Jewish compatriots, either you are actively with them or you are their enemy, there are no half measures and no bipartisan positions, you have to choose or they will choose for you. Further, even if you choose and even one of your ranking members steps out of the strict lines these people will place around you, then you will be called to answer because they will not couch any discrepancies from their approved positions. Once in, you have to be all the way in and no hedging your position or backtracking will be permitted and anyone dissenting in the slightest will, you will be demanded to reprimand and depart their company.

 

Some final thoughts on this subject as a whole and independent of any AIPAC, ZOA or other political actions type lobbying groups. The far left has made their choice. They have decided, as they historically always have, that they want an end to the Judeo-Christian ethic and what Hitler referred to as the Jew Conscience and Jew Morality which he promised to free the world from. This is why initially, before Germany declared war on the United States, people like Charles Lindbergh, William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Kennedy, John Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon, Allen Dulles as well as Vice President of General Motors Graeme K. Howard supported Adolf Hitler as well as Generalissimo Francisco Franco and Benito Mussolini as it appeared that their fascist methods were working extremely well for business and manufacturing. What they may or may not have known was that much of the success was making the tools and weapons of war which became evident later in the 1930’s as World War II started. When this resolute means for ridding society and the governance of Judeo-Christian ties, their next great love affair was with the Communists. Interestingly enough the Communists also were promising an end to the Judeo-Christian ethic and the strangling influence it had on their plans. The leftists have always been kindly favorable of hedonism which runs afoul of the Judeo-Christian lifestyle of staunch conservatism and a religious and proper restriction on one’s personal actions. The Communists also failed to rid the world, especially the West, of the Judeo-Christian ethos and it too fell by the wayside. Well, not to be left without a champion who can rid them of the Judeo-Christian ethos; the leftists of today have allied with Islam. They are of the belief that once Islam has rid the world of Judeo-Christianity as a driving force and has put in place a dictatorial governance, another item the leftists find attractive and also another reason they loved Fascism and Communist and their centralized power in the government, the leftists reason that they can simply take control of the levers of power and transform Islam to fit their ideal and ideas. They believe that their “superior education” and “superior experience in governance” and their “general superiority in all things” will allow them to simply transform Islam into adopting their leftist principles and morals (or lack thereof) thus finally establishing their new world order. What they are missing in their plan is exactly how they will take over Islam and change a religion and its principles and strict moral code which have resisted change for much of its fourteen hundred years of existence. Granted that Islam had a period where it had settled from constant war and conquest and was quite agreeable and accepting of non-Muslims, especially Jews and Christians. There was the Golden Age of Islam (725 – 1260 approx.) where a liberated view of Islam permitted a pluralistic society and free exchange of information and a general acceptance of science and knowledge from outside of the Quran. This liberalism and the permitting of extra-Quranic knowledge came crashing to an end with two distinct and distant events. The first was the arrival of the Mongols from the east and the final was the rise of the Spanish under King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella and the purification of Spain. With the military defeats came the belief that Islam must return to the very roots which carried it forth originally from the Arabian Peninsula and a strict following of the teachings of Muhammad as portrayed in the Quranic texts and the Hadiths. This has continued ever since with the repeated expectation that this solution will work, Allah willing. They may finally be correct as Europe is being gifted to the purveyors of Islam on a golden platter. The leftists will allow the invasion and conquest without use of actual military but simply by replacement and superiority of numbers. The unfortunate thing for the Europeans will be that the Muslims may prove to be impatient and resort to civil warfare to speed the process rather than waiting for the inevitable to simply occur. This may prove to be their undoing as it may awaken the entirety of Europe before the Muslims have sufficient numbers to win outright and thus lead to a horrific conflict as Europe either saves itself from Islam and rediscovers having children in the process or Islam succeeds in speeding the process and the infidel are purged in the process. Either resolution will not benefit the leftists as their plan is extremely flawed for any number of reasons, but that has always been the case.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

February 20, 2017

The Left’s War Against Trump and the Media

 

Well, the leftist temper tantrum is a month old today so it only seemed right to acknowledge the courage, dedication and stamina of so many of these demonstrators to continue this long and with such enthusiasm, it is almost admirable. One might ask to what end they believe they are working towards but that would be silly, they have made that evidently clear. Their aim is to drive President Trump from office and put the rightful winner of the election in the Oval Office, Hillary Clinton. Somebody should inform them that there is a huge snag in their plan, that darned Constitution thing again. Drive Donald Trump from office and then there will be Mike Pence taking the Oath of Office. And should they then chase Mike Pence from office before he could have his appointment for his replacement through the Senate, something their allies in the Senate appear to be quite adept at doing, then the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, would become the President. I’m not sure if this force Trump from office idea has been completely thought out as each step appears to make things get even worse as people more familiar with how to get things through Washington come into power and each time with even further right views. As a matter of fact, if one goes through the entire list of progression you need to go really deep, wait a minute, no, Hillary Clinton is nowhere on that list whatsoever. Well, perhaps they have some other ideas on how to get Hillary Clinton or whomever they desire into the Oval Office, though short of a revolution I do not see how. We gave that idea a brief glancing concern in our article The Fascist Playbook is Being Repeated Now all in hopes that whoever and whatever is behind, pushing and financing these protests, and especially the senseless violence, are not hoping to force a revolution and end the great experiment in self-governance which is the United States of America.

 

There has always been a group of elitists who held that mankind is too ignorant, too stupid, too impatient, too selfish, too immature, too anything you could mention to be permitted the luxury of ruling themselves. Initially they were the royalty, the emperors, kings, queens, barons and the land owners. At the same time there was a second group who also believed mankind, including the ruling class of kings, queens, etcetera were too limited in all manner of ways to rule themselves; this was the Church centered in Rome. The kings and queens and their ilk figured their exceptional breeding made them the special chosen by Hashem to rule and this gave them the right and wisdom to rule. That idea does not even deserve argument as a simple perusing through the kings and queens and other nobles and one sees they were so wrong as many were seriously flawed and ignorant little people. The Church was a different subject as the Church could rely on a group intellect which gave them a better position for wisdom and proper rule but they too had a damning limitation, their reliance on the Bible as they interpreted it and their blindness to science and change. They saw science as a threat rather than a tool and refused to use any of its wisdom or ideas which had them living with falsehoods similar to the fake news of today. The Church splintered in the Protestant Reformation and never recovered their lost power and today only maintains an advisory role with merely a fragment of their former power. Now there are some elites with great wealth who believe their wealth means they have the superior abilities and should craft the society in their images. One such is George Soros who once stated, “I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control otherwise they might get me into trouble.” Just like those elitists from the past, today’s wunderkind are just as clueless and blind to their weaknesses and faults which will have their attempts to guide humanity fail just as have the previous attempts. There is another group which has always believed they are actually the ones who should lead the whole of humankind as they have this concept where the savior is government and if only the government with its collective wisdom was granted ultimate power they could solve every problem and steer society through all the potential storms, threats and difficulties.

 

George Soros who once stated, “I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control otherwise they might get me into trouble.”

George Soros who once stated,
“I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies
with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control
otherwise they might get me into trouble.”

 

This group is made up of predominantly the socialist, big government, regulation intensive leftists. These politically active individuals believe that they are correct and know the only solutions which could possibly work and insist that because of their superior intellects and greater education and other singular attributes, they should be the sole people to hold the reins of power. That is the problem, their selected candidate, Hillary Clinton, somehow was not as unbeatable as the media had painted her during the campaign. Making matters all the worse, the candidate who won the election was, according to the leftist elites, an idiot and incompetent buffoon full of bluster, braggadocios and simple minded to boot. They view President Donald Trump as completely unfit to hold the office of President and are willing to go to any extent to remove him from office and place somebody who is knowledgeable and competent into the Oval Office. One recent example comes from President Trump’s claim that he has tried and tried to arrange a meeting with Maryland Representative and Chairman of the Congressional Black Congress Elijah Cummings stating inferring actuality that, “He [Congressman Elijah Cummings], wanted it [a meeting], but we called, called, called, called. They can’t make a meeting with him. Every day I walk in I say, ‘I would like to meet with him, because I do want to solve the problem.’ But he probably was told by [Senator Chuck] Schumer or somebody like that — some other lightweight — he was probably told, ‘Don’t meet with Trump. It’s bad politics.’ And that’s part of the problem with this country.” It will be a matter of time, if it has not already happened, that some journalist or political figure will come out stating that they have talked with or have it on the highest authority that Donald Trump has not asked to meet Representative Cummings more than one reference in a speech somewhere or that Senator Schumer has not told Representative Cummings whether or not to meet with the President, that is if they refer to President Trump by his office or simply as Donald Trump as some have a habit claiming he is not dignified, intelligent, decent or sophisticated enough to deserve such reference. Apparently for Donald Trump winning the election was insufficient for him to have earned being referred to as President, imagine if such were to have been said of Hillary Clinton had she won the election by the Wall Street Journal or Glen Beck; the liberal media would come unglued.

 

Then there is the whole dust-up over “Fake News” and all which such entails. There have been some misleading stories and other simply made-up out of whole cloth stories either making the “Fake News” label valid or the entire “Fake News” story is “Fake News” all depending on which side of the political spectrum one resides. That is the basis of the problem in the United States, which we had pointed to first with The Mirage of the Unaligned Middle Voters back on June 17, 2011 and much later in Republicans Need a Real, Honest and True Blue Candidate on February 18, 2016, is the near complete lack of a true and palpable number of middle of the political spectrum voters. The American public has split nearly evenly and has polarized near completely. This has been the case for quite some time and everybody in the game understands this though often they wish to deny such and claim there is still huge numbers of middle of the road votes to be had. The media likes to pretend that there are votes to be gained by catering to the middle and running a campaign to match. Often we will see the Democrat candidate make speeches sounding out middle of the road principles and the media making a big deal about the Democrats playing it smart and running towards the middle. The reality is their voters are fully aware that it is all an act made to try and force the republican candidate to do likewise. Often this ploy in tandem with the media trumpeting the wisdom and campaign advisors who still remember what can only be called ‘the good old days’ when winning the middle of the road vote was essential and they advise the Republican to fish in those same waters as the Democrat using the old agenda that the true conservatives have no other choice and they may as well compete for the middle voters against the Democrats. The problem is in recent elections the conservative voters have been burned so often they stay home if they doubt the true intentions of the Republican candidate hoping that by doing so they can force the Republicans to nominate a true and real conservative. The Republicans, for reasons unknown, continued to play for the nonexistent center and lose with few exceptions. This last election Donald Trump refused to run to the center and simply stayed on his message and battled head to head with the media and his formula won.

 

The media is upset with President Trump because he did not fall for their trap of moving to the middle which would have cost him the election. They are upset that President Trump appears to have gotten the better of the media by winning the election. They have become even further enraged because President Trump refuses to let up on their biases and have been giving as good as he has gotten. They are furious that he defeated Hillary Clinton, the candidate they had all but elected a week before the election and that President Trump has not been humble in his victory and refuses to allow himself to be humbled by the media. He has called the media out for their lies and false accusations against him. The media simply wants President Trump to respect them as the holders of the holy grail by telling the stories as they see fit except President Trump just continues to insist on telling the stories his way and managing to get his side out to the people with or without the media. His Tweets drive them completely up the wall and into the crazy places of the attic as it allows President Trump access to his supporters without going through the formerly all-powerful media. He ignores them and then goads them whenever he deals with them. President Trump refuses to respect the media in the way they have grown accustomed to having politicians grovel. That President Trump basically used the media as an arm of his campaign by using a mixture of policy statements and completely ludicrous and taunting statements which they carried. The media saw Donald Trump as a series of insane commentary and ignored his policy statements while carrying them because they saw them as wrong-headed and unpopular while his supporters ignored his inane, insane, accusational statements which the media took as so important and loved his message and policy statements to heart and these won him the election. The election came down to the media and Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton using their tried and true personal attacks and characterization of Trump as a dangerous and evil, hateful and mean-spirited old fool while Trump ignored every nasty attack except for the occasional quoting of these nasty commentaries or mean coverage and otherwise stuck to his message pretending that he had seldom heard a discouraging word. In the end message won over accusations. The biggest drawing from the Trump campaign was the message on immigration while the most crucial is the one least talked about as if to talk about it is stepping on the third rail of journalism, but we are not journalists or normal, so here it is as plain as we can state it, the reason that Trump won. Donald Trump remembered from history that the British said much the same disparaging things calling Winston Churchill an old fool ringing the bells of war and hatred and seeing evil hiding behind every tree and that that same old fool saved the Western World from the evil clutches of fascism. Trump also sees a rising fascism in the world in the form of radicalized Islamic extremism and names it as such and Hillary Clinton claims there is no such threat and wanted to open the floodgates allowing in as many refugees from areas where just such threats are most rampant. Donald Trump saw the danger and Hillary Clinton did not thus Donald Trump won because he was willing to call things exactly as they appear and Hillary Clinton insisted on painting pretty pictures of Kumbaya and Shangri-La where nothing was wrong and everybody was playing nice together. That was the deciding factor and nobody really wants to talk about it in the media, nobody.

 

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 

 

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.