What a Difference the Media Makes

 

Thinking back just over eight years to the media coverage of the election of President Barack Hussein Obama and his overwhelming Democrat majority in both houses of Congress and with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and the media was all dreamy-eyed. There was their obvious euphoria which reflected much of the population’s reaction to having elected the first Black President. There was speculation of all the wondrous things to come, universal healthcare, a more perfect society, booming economy, jobs galore, the end of war, historic changes and a better Supreme Court. It was almost ghoulish when some articles even listed three or potentially four older Supreme Court Justices who might pass on or resign during President Obama’s terms in office. Oh yea, and his reelection was already in the bag, the one item which was apparently true. There were no mentions of crime rates, homeless people, drug problems amongst teens and young adults, rampant crime or even mention that some who had voted for Senator John McCain might not be as “in” with the election results. No, there was no mention of them or that they were not happy with the idea of fundamentally changing America and feared they were about to experience a rerun of President Jimmy Carter on steroids. Little did they know but they were also going to get a big dose of President Lyndon Baines Johnson and steamrolling over Congress and a pinch of President Lincoln and his disregard for the limitations of the Constitution. The ride was going too long and especially hard for Strong Conservatives, Religious Traditionalists, Strong Foreign Policy and Constitutional Purists. In most of the media, even presumably conservative Fox News with the only exceptions being some conservatives talk radio and television and editorial page writers who predicted a long cold time in the winter grounds of the political world. They were exiled and shunned with much of the media predicting the end of conservatives and the Republican Party. They were almost correct.

 

The presumed common knowledge that any Republican could and would have defeated Hillary Clinton and done so with a far more definitive vote count in the popular vote and Electoral College. Some doubt this bold and seeming obvious logic and ask if Jeb Bush had been the Republican candidate, would he have done as well or even won? Then counting out Jeb Bush, which of the other fifteen remaining candidates would have won? Would Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, John Kasich, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki or Jim Gilmore really have drawn voters to the polls in the numbers that Donald Trump? Would any of these have made a bigger spectacle of the media and their bias and used the media against the system as did Donald Trump? Granted, there might have been a select few, no more than three, who would have honestly had a better than even chance of defeating Hillary Clinton using traditional political theater. Republicans should face the fact that Donald Trump really was the choice looking back because Hillary Clinton had the old style game wrapped up and had the funding to bury any Republican message put forth in the traditional manner. Trump won by making news report him and often only him and that was what was necessary to outdo Hillary Clinton and the billions she had to spend. It was being brash and in the face of the media demanding time that gave Trump the edge other candidates would have lacked. Name a single Republican who could have gotten more media than Hillary Clinton and also been considered electable by normative standards, the means all the others with the possible exception of Ted Cruz whose appeal was even more limited than Donald Trump had.

 

Forward to the media after this Electoral College landslide and what are the media covering. Their main stories are “stolen election,” popular vote, Hillary Won, Electors need be allowed to switch to Hillary Clinton, end Electoral College, American democracy (forgetting that America is actually a Constitutional Democratic Republic with the words other than Democratic having the majority of the weight), Russian hacking, Russia backing Trump, and more Hillary Clinton needs to become the winner by any and all means necessary. When not declaring Donald Trump illegitimate, questioning election results, giving slanted or even false stories about delegates changing their vote on the first ballot of the Electoral College (never happened and most delegates are sworn to vote for the declared winner of their state on the first or first two ballots with some having to do so no matter how many ballot votes are necessitated), then they are talking of all the threats and difficulties which President Trump will face. Some news items are talking up the challenges and negatives in society which they have not mentioned for the past eight years, really weird how all these things, low workforce participation, higher than reported unemployment, crime rates climbing, murder rates at all-time highs, foreign problems in the Middle East, especially Iran, Afghanistan, and Syria which were all under control until Trump won because that caused them to explode, Putin, more Putin, and some even decry that Donald Trump was elected President and has done nothing about any of these problems. Truth is Donald Trump will not actually be elected President until next week after the Electoral College votes and sends their results to Congress and then we technically need to wait for Congress to accept the ballots and then he becomes President Elect, probably some time a week before the Inauguration. Oh, another item is that he does not become President until after the swearing in at approximately noon on January 20, 2017 and then he becomes President with absolutely no advisors, Cabinet, or Administration in any working order as he has to present all his appointees for Senate ratification. These are often a simple formality with an occasional debate and extra few days or a week required and rarely is anyone the President desires on his Cabinet turned down. Expect the Democrats to filibuster and try to prevent some, if not many or even a majority, of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet appointments with the possibility that some will be refused because the Democrats refuse to permit a vote to ratify their appointments. While this is not unheard of, it has not been a practice and the last time there was even doubts was with President Ronald Reagan and we cannot recall any from before that going back to the first republican President, Abe Lincoln, who was the last to have any appointments to his Cabinet debated harshly.

 

Why the problems with the Cabinet. Well, the media has been debating the problem already. President Trump has chosen two Generals, actually three but the third does not require Congressional approval as he will be the National Security Advisor (but he may require release from the seven years required retirement time before serving in government which falls to Congress), both of whom President Obama let go, forced retirement, fired (you choose the description which fits your thoughts as they all end the same way) thus also require waivers as well as approval to their positions. The generals are General James “Mad Dog” Mattis (ret) as Secretary of Defense and General John Kelly (ret) as Secretary of Homeland security (Lt. General Michael Flynn as National Security Advisor). The positions that the media is all hyperventilating over, having retired Generals appointed from the Marines and Army, are hardly positions where having served in a ranking position in the military would exactly be a disqualification and one might claim an advantageous part to have in one’s background. General John Kelly (ret) served largely in intelligence and that General James “Mad Dog” Mattis (ret) was an infantry and combat arms commander who was loved and highly rated by the men who served under him, both as officers and enlisted down to the lowest grunt. Lt. General Michael Flynn also has a background serving in the Defense Intelligence Agency as well as holding Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance. General James “Mad Dog” Mattis service history is extensive and reads U.S. Central Command, U.S. Joint Forces Command, Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, U.S. Marine Forces Central Command, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Commander 1st Marine Division, Commander 7th Marine Regiment, and Commander 1st Battalion, 7th Marines. General John Kelly (ret) served as United States Southern Command, 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, and Multinational Force West. We would not be exactly upset, saddened or even perturbed should Donald Trump choose a few more Generals as well as others with extensive military background as we fear that such men and women with such experience are going to become a needed commodity sooner rather than later as the world, especially the Middle East and Europe crumble before our eyes.

 

We can expect much of the media going into hypoxic shock from hyperventilating and potentially passing out with some requiring medical treatment for what will eventually be referred to as TRDS, or Trump Reflexive Distress Syndrome. There is probably no cure but as we understand, it is treated by having the afflicted color in coloring books (neatness not required nor is coloring inside the lines), petting puppies and kittens, hugging warm blankets while suckling on a pacifier or thumb, standing in a corner screaming obscenities at the wall (only for the most severe cases) and the always required stress counselling with a trained and licensed Stress Counsellor. There will continue to be long lists of a litany of troubles, criminal waves, lawless cities, and general disasters worldwide which are the direct result of the Trump victory and also the greatest threats to world societal peace and thus things that a President Trump will be responsible for contending with. Of course there is an instant solution to all these ills, find a way to elect Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump and all these problems would disappear until a Republican would get elected, like that would ever happen in a sane world. See, even we are showing signs of stress due to all those who are suffering from TRDS (Trump Reflexive Distress Syndrome). Those who voted approvingly for Donald Trump and have been celebrating this victory should be advised to not turn on their radios or televisions unless they know and have wisely chosen where and from whom to get their news. Choose incorrectly and your sanity will be rocked by the openly biased partisanship against Trump which is close to universal even across the ocean in Europe the leftists are in shock. There is hope that these people can be settled sufficiently such that they can explode again should Donald Trump even run and especially should he win a second term.

 

TRDS or Trump Reflexive Distress Syndrome

 

Puppies at George Mason University
Picture Care of Washington Post

 

But first, why don’t we all agree to wait and see how he performs before denouncing him as a failure because all these problems are out there and he has not done a single thing. You are correct, but that is because he is not the President yet. If you had truly wanted actions taken on these issues you would have been covering them for the past eight years and wondering where President Obama was on these problems but instead you simply celebrated having won the election because that is what it is all about, winning. President Obama summed up the left when he stated simply to the Republicans when they were intentionally locked out of anything to do with the crafting of Obamacare and he blurted accusingly, “We won!” What an argument over any input on such an overreaching piece of legislation but on the other side, Obamacare is pure Democrat Party crafting and did not receive a single Republican vote in the entire two houses of Congress. Unprecedented, and there you have it.

 

Beyond the Cusp 

 

Obama Forbid It Ever Coming to That

 

Since the results of the Israeli elections were announced, the rumors coming out of Washington D.C. have been troubling to say the least. The singular item which has been part and parcel of every set of rumors has been the threat to no longer act in defense of Israel at the United Nations. As the United States can only veto resolutions effectively in the Security Council and Israel has effectively mostly ignored nonbinding resolutions while occasionally acting hurt or surprised, probably to amuse and entertain those who follow such events, the threats can only be about certain Security Council resolutions. This makes the question very simply, is President Obama intending to only permit Chapter 6 resolutions or has President Obama been driven so beyond the cusp that he intends to also stand aside or even support Chapter 7 binding and backed by military intervention resolutions, more often than not United States military force. It would be a very sad day that when the first combat troops from the United States deployed to Israel would be fighting against Israel in efforts to set borders establishing an Arab Palestinian state including cutting Jerusalem in half and setting up denial of rights for Jews to the majority of the ancient Jewish and Hebrew holy sites just as it was when Jordan occupied the heartlands of ancient Israel and Judea. This being done in the name of the American people, probably some of the greatest friends and supporters of Israel, is one of the most upsetting of ideas that before the current American leadership would have been unthinkable. There have been times when relations were tested such as when President Reagan did refuse to prevent the United Nations condemnation of Israel over their bombing of the Osirak reactor in Iraq before it was put online and producing bomb material for Saddam Hussein, something Israel was later thanked for when the United States was facing an Iraq without nuclear weapons. With the Iranian nuclear negotiations and the related fiasco, the whole reaction to the elections and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to Congress accepting Speaker of the House Boehner’s invitation has all been more of a panic over lost prestige than reasoned exception of intended slights.

 

There have been editorials claiming that the reaction by the President is exactly the kind of reaction a narcissist who also has fears and self-doubts and takes things so personally as if everything revolves around him and also any act is intentionally committed to affect him personally would react. Unfortunately for President Obama, I can honestly lay his concerns aside as neither my wife nor I had him in mind when we voted this past week. We apologize for not taking President Obama’s feelings into consideration but maybe he can take some solace in the fact that neither of us voted for Likud though we did support parties considered even more Zionist than Likud and have probably more hesitations and greater degrees of trepidation of a government led by Netanyahu as he has already proven that he cannot be trusted to keep a promise for more than a few days before wilting before the hurt feelings of President Obama. I realize that President Obama really wanted the next Israeli Prime Minister to be somebody other than Bibi, which meant Tzipi Livni and or Yitzhak Hertzog, because they would have consulted with President Obama before ordering their lunches for the day, let alone anything truly important. The truth is that President Obama is going to have to actually work at getting the Israeli Prime Minister to dance to his tune if Netanyahu manages to cobble together a coalition without breaking too many rules. The good news is that with the right threats combined with some heart felt anger mixed with a dash of well-stated demands and finally a no small amount of pleading, the next Israeli Prime Minister might act or at least appear to act just as President Obama desires.

 

Somehow I doubt that suggestion would sit too well with President Obama, so why not give him some sagely advice which might actually make things better rather than making fun of the situation. Here is an idea which nobody has ever attempted whose time may be due. Why not try to have Mahmoud Abbas present an actual written presentation of what he would accept as a solution and then ask the Israeli leader, once you have said document in hand, if he would make a counter proposal or possibly even accept the proposed solution as presented. I bet if you could get Mahmoud Abbas to actually tell the world exactly what he would accept and allow, then everybody could to see for themselves exactly what would be considered acceptable to the Palestinians. Thus far the Palestinian leadership from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas and everybody accompanying this parade of malcontents has only had to say “no” to every offer from Israel and the entire world then demanded Israel surrender a little more. Then when that was also rejected the world pushed Israel again to surrender a little more. In the twenty years since Oslo Israel has been backed into a corner where there is no more to give and still survive. Israel cannot survive allowing the Palestinians to possess the Judean Hills overlooking Tel Aviv and the heart of modern Israel. Israel has played this game for too long. President Obama, have somebody read the San Remo Conference treaty to you and realize that is the International Law which defined Israeli borders. Those are the borders the world guaranteed Israel including the United States back in 1920, long before the Holocaust or anything else everybody loves to present as facts today. So, read that treaty to Mahmoud Abbas and tell him that should he make a reasonable demand of Israel in this his one opening to actually get his own state as long as he will be reasonable and considers the reality of the San Remo Conference and how that changes the hype around the Palestinians. This also affects the Palestinians going to the ICC; as if Israel is dragged to the ICC, they will simply lay a copy of the San Remo Conference treaty on the Judges’ tables and quietly await their decision as they interpret International Law in light of a treaty which had as signatories every member of the League of Nations even including Persia; you might know them better by their adopted name relating their presumed Aryan supremacy, Iran.

 

But instead of threatening the Israeli people and subjecting the world to an almost guaranteed conflagration which will most certainly follow any rocket barrage striking the greater Tel Aviv megalopolis, especially if any of downtown Tel Aviv and its skyscrapers in its central district were to be struck, causing thousands of deaths similar to the World Trade Center’s destruction in scope and numbers as any such assault would entail hundreds rockets in the initial few hours before Israel could respond adequately to end the attack. So, just a suggestion that for a change it be attempted to have the Palestinians present an actual proposal, I bet it will not be as easy as everyone claims. I know what the knee-jerk response will be, “Everybody already knows the Palestinians only want what is rightfully theirs.” Well, apparently President Clinton did not know what they wanted as he extracted what he thought was exactly what the Palestinians wanted and the result was Yasser Arafat bolting from the room in Paris and returning to his bunker and starting the Second Intifada as had been his plan from even before the negotiations had begun. So, just to satisfy the world’s curiosity as I am sure everybody would claim that this idea would be almost a no brainer as the Palestinians would be able to put their idea of a fair treaty down on paper and allow it to be presented to the Israelis with the understanding that if the Israelis accepted it then there would be an agreement and a signing within a week and if the Israelis did not agree at least the differences would finally be presented and the world can work with both parties from that point and reconcile any differences. But for nothing more than a change of agendas and demanding Israel make the offer, allow the Palestinians to start the ball rolling, we’ve rolled it far enough. We will wait for your answer and the presentation of the demands the Palestinians requested you make in their name, oh, and be just as demanding that they be fair and making an honestly presentable proposal and not just demand that they be given all of Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem and that Israel accept the right of return of five million Arabs as we all know that is a nonstarter. Then once you have a reasonable proposal from Abbas, call us, we’ll leave the line open for you.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Calls for Revolution Will Lead to Undesirable Results

Revolutions are part of the natural cycles of governance and are often required to bring forth change. Change is the one result of revolution that is guaranteed. Desirable change is not guaranteed and is the least likely of all the possible results from a revolution. The one consequence of revolution is unpredictability and such uncertainty is a wicked mistress. The closest analogy of revolution in nature is fire. The great plains and forests of the world left to nature will suffer cleansing fires as that is nature’s way of effecting change. The renewals resultant from these flames is necessary in the cycles of renewal by Mother Nature. The other similarity between nature’s renewal by fire and political renewal by revolution is that each is an extremely dangerous process to all living things within the effects of the sweeping flames of change. The forests and plains then reset to an original starting point from which nature rebuilds eventually reaching the point where the conditions will eventually again reach the point where the conditions are ripe for the next renewal by fire. Governance of man is similar in that the governance that results from any revolution is not guaranteed and, more often than not, the forces in control at the end of the revolution are rarely the same forces that began the revolution. The recent revolutions in the Middle East are perfect examples of this consequence.

 

The originators of the Egyptian uprising, for example, were students and young adults who using the new high tech media began a revolution that presented the opportunity for the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists to step in and reap the rewards from the wind swept flames of change. Similar results followed from what began actually in 2009 Iran where the students and many from the society protested the stealing of the election by Ahmadinejad and were violently oppressed. Their attempt at change failed largely due to the timidity by the rest of the world to support their calls for relief from despotic rule. The next country was Tunisia where a vegetable street vendor reached beyond his limits and revolted by self-immolation. This was the spark that lighted the flames of revolution in Tunisia which then ignited across Northern Africa and beyond. The original protests were demands for freedom, democratic representation, liberty, and an end to economic repressions. The results have thus far been the replacement of nationalistic dictators with the election of Islamic religious leaderships which may result in the imposition of a new dictatorial type of theocratic tyrannies. The freedom expressing youth who wished for modernized democratic governance began these revolutions and the theocratic fundamentalists had the organizational presence to take advantage of an unstable leadership vacuum which they used all their influence and power to fill while displacing the idealistic youth. The history of revolutions will verify the posit that those who initiate revolution are more often than not cast aside by other forces who have the necessary organization in the ready seemingly waiting for just such an opportunity to divert the situation for their own gain.

 

There are those who believe that a revolution may be required in order to reinstitute the original Constitutional limits and reinstate idealistic governance that they believe existed at the birth of the United States and honestly believe that they would be able to control the transformation once the existing governance had been toppled making room for their visions to be realized. Other than the disillusioned truth that even at the time that George Washington was taking the oath of office the constitution was on the verge of being compromised as soon as Congress was seated. The Constitutional standard set forth in the actual document was an idealistic governance for which we were to strive and described a perfection which was to be minded in order to limit the evils to which men fall victim simply due to the fact that all are imperfect and corruptible when compared to a perfection of the vision such as presented in the Constitution. The ideal is near impossible yet is what must be the used definition of governance if society is to have any possibility of resisting the temptations that lead to corrupt ruling leadership that result from partaking of a taste of power. The problem with any revolution, even one with the stated goal of reinstating the original Constitution in its entirety, the temptations of power will work their tantalizations on those who find themselves as leaders. Since revolutions will tend to appoint or have some assume power, they leave the aims of the revolution to become victim of the desires of those trusted with leadership. History has proven that those trusted with leadership often break every vow and trust that was instituted when they first assumed leadership and power. As the old phrase states, “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

 

When looking at the current state of political power in the United States and comparing it to the allocations of power according to the Constitution, one finds the structure which was meant to protect the individual States from an overreaching central government have been completely turned on their head. This is very much a stipulation for change that is made by those who believe the time has come to take whatever steps may be required to reset the governance of the United States back to the originating Constitutional arrangements. The problem is there is far too much risk in attempting to force such a change as those in power will not likely surrender that which they now hold. Forcing the issue would necessitate revolution and the flames of change are usually not kind. The only guaranteed manner of reasserting the limits and doctrines of the Constitution is to go through a period of disciplined change in order to undo over two hundred years of compromise. Such an endeavor would take near inhuman dedication over generations all the while resisting the exact same temptations which caused this problem in the first place. The problem is that each compromise committed to the purity of the Constitution was seen and accepted as an improvement or necessity and was generally approved by the majority at their inception. The perfect example would be the Seventeenth Amendment which called for a change in the manner for the selection of United States Senators. In accordance with the humanistic philosophies of the period where it was theorized that the people as a whole entity were of superior intelligence and pure nature than were the State Governments which were seen as even more corrupt than the Federal Government. This caused the belief that the citizenry would be preferred to be given the power to elect their Senators instead of allowing the State Legislators or Governor to appoint them. This was seen as advantageous and the Constitutional Amendment was presumably ratified as such. The theory that the Senate was to be the house that represented the individual States was set aside and transformed to mean the Senators were to represent the will of the peoples of each State. This was definitely to the advantage of the powers in Washington as it completely removed any vestige of power over the Federal Government actions and laws from the State legislators or other governmental power. This one Amendment may have had the most far reaching affect in subsuming power from the States into the centralized Federal Government. To undo the evisceration of the United States Constitution by two centuries of compromises and cheating performed by the representatives of the people, often despite vocal protests from a minority of strict constitutionalists, the people must be convinced it is in their vital interest to partake of an effort to reassert the original limitations, definitions, identifications, and structures of the Constitution of the Federal Government and all other forms of governance throughout the United States. Even if this should become evident, it would then take transmitting this eminent desire to the ensuing generations very likely for far longer than it took allowing for the constitution to be abridged. That will be one difficult and possibly climbable mountain to conquer, but likely a worthy goal. It is that very difficulty that makes the idea of revolution and quick restoration so tempting, but that allure would likely not produce the desired end. The fires of change tend to burn out of the control of those who lighted the initial flames.

 

Beyond the Cusp